Quality and readability of online patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms
Quality and readability of online patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jvs.2011.12.063
复制
发表时间：
2012-07-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Scott, D. Julian A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bailey, Marc A.;Coughlin, Patrick A.;Scott, D. Julian A.
目的：我们评估从英国访问的万维网（World Wide Web）上腹主动脉瘤（AAAs）患者信息的质量和可读性。方法：使用市场份额最大的三个搜索引擎进行简单的Web搜索所返回的网站，客观和主观地评估其质量和可读性。互联网搜索引擎b谷歌，雅虎！和Bing被询问了“腹主动脉瘤”这个词，并筛选了前50个搜索结果。记录了组织类型和网络运行状况状态。每个包含AAA级信息的独特网站都由两位作者使用密歇根大学消费者健康网站评估清单进行质量评分，并使用Flesch Reading Ease （FRE）分数计算可读性。还进行了主观内容评价。结果：在150个点击中，有112个是相关的，有55个独特的网站可供评估。总体而言，FRE得分为39（范围29-47），Michigan得分为36（范围25-56），观察者间一致性良好(r(s) = 0.83；P = 0.01)。密歇根评分与FRE评分相关性较差(r(s) = 0.064；P = .6)。讨论血管内/开放修复的优点和干预阈值概念的网站密歇根评分最高（58.5 [50-59.75]vs 28 [13-36.5]; P < .001）。搜索引擎排名、网络健康状态、原产国和组织类型不会影响质量或可读性。结论：目前AAAs在线患者信息的质量和可读性较差，需要显著改善。治疗AAAs患者的临床医生应该意识到在线“外行文献”的局限性。（中华外科杂志2012；56:21-6）
Objective: We assessed the quality and readability of patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) on the World Wide Web, as accessed from the United Kingdom.Methods: Web sites returned by a simple Web search using the three largest search engines by market share were objectively and subjectively assessed for quality and readability. The Internet search engines Google, Yahoo!, and Bing were interrogated for the term "abdominal aortic aneurysm" and the first 50 hits screened. Organization type and Health on the Net status were recorded. Each unique site containing AAA information was scored for quality using the University of Michigan Consumer Health Web site Evaluation Checklist by two authors, and readability was calculated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. Subjective content assessment was also undertaken.Results: Of 150 hits, 112 were relevant, with 55 unique sites for assessment. Overall, the FRE score was 39 (range, 29-47) and the Michigan score was 36 (range, 25-56), with good interobserver agreement (r(s) = 0.83; P = .01). Michigan and FRE scores were poorly correlated (r(s) = 0.064; P = .6). Sites containing discussion on the merits of endovascular/open repair and the concept of an intervention threshold had the highest Michigan scores (58.5 [50-59.75] vs 28 [13-36.5]; P < .001). Search engine ranking, Health on the Net status, country of origin, and organization type did not affect quality or readability.Conclusions: The current quality and readability of online patient information for AAAs is poor and requires significant improvement. Clinicians treating patients with AAAs should be aware of the limitations of the online "lay literature." (J Vasc Surg 2012;56:21-6.)