Analysis of Readability and Quality of Web Pages Addressing both Common and Uncommon Topics in Pediatric Surgery

Abstract

Introduction The quality medical information on Internet is highly variable. The aim of this study is to determine if Web pages addressing four common pediatric surgical topics (CT) and four uncommon pediatric surgical topics (UT) differ significantly in terms of quality and/or characteristics.

Materials and Methods We performed an Internet search regarding four CT, addressing more frequent clinical conditions with an incidence ≤1:1.500 children (inguinal hernia, varicocele, umbilical hernia, and phimosis) and four UT addressing less frequent clinical conditions with an incidence ≥1:1.500 children (anorectal malformation, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, and omphalocele), using a popular search engine (Google). We evaluated readability with the Flesch reading ease (FRE) and the Flesch–Kincaid grade (FKG) and quality of content using the site checker of the HON Code of Conduct (HON code) for each website.

Results In this study, 30/40 websites addressing CT versus 33/50 addressing UT responded to our criteria. No differences statistically significant in advertisements between the two groups were found (15 vs. 16%) (p > 0.05). No differences were found in terms of time from last update, owner/author type, financial disclosure, accreditation, or advertising. CT had higher quality level according to the HON code (6.54 ± 1.38 vs. 5.05 ± 1.82) (p < 0.05). Mean FRE was 47.38 ± 14.27 versus 46.24 ± 14.56, respectively, for CT and UT (p > 0.05). The mean FKG was 8.1 ± 1.9 for CT versus 8 ± 1.9 for UT (p > 0.05).

Conclusions Websites devoted to pediatric surgical topics have higher readability and quality information for disease diagnosis and natural history. Otherwise, the quality of pediatric surgical information on the Internet is high for CT and UT. A high reading level is required to use these resources.

Keywords

Web quality - Internet - pediatric surgery - HON code

• References

• 1 American Public Health Association. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the Internet. Am J Public Health 2001; 91 (3) 513-514
• 2 Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002; 287 (20) 2691-2700
• 3 Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, Makary MA, Ko CY. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207 (4) 580-586
• 4 Routh JC, Gong EM, Nelson CP. Pediatric urology and the internet—does an uncommon topic decrease content quality?. J Urol 2009; 182 (4) 1569-1574
• 5 Croft DR, Peterson MW. An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. Chest 2002; 121 (4) 1301-1307
• 6 Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Publishing; 2001
• 7 Siliquini R, Ceruti M, Lovato E , et al. Surfing the internet for health information: an Italian survey on use and population choices. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2011; 11: 21
• 8 Miller EA, Pole A, Bateman C. Variation in health blog features and elements by gender, occupation, and perspective. J Health Commun 2011; 16 (7) 726-749
• 9 Coker TR, Sareen HG, Chung PJ, Kennedy DP, Weidmer BA, Schuster MA. Improving access to and utilization of adolescent preventive health care: the perspectives of adolescents and parents. J Adolesc Health 2010; 47 (2) 133-142
• 10 Hassan A, Fleegler EW. Using technology to improve adolescent healthcare. Curr Opin Pediatr 2010; 22 (4) 412-417