0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Evaluation of Web-Based Information

      research-article
      1 , , 2
      ,
      Cureus
      Cureus
      information quality, healthcare information, internet, readability, laparoscopic cholecystectomy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the gold standard treatment for symptomatic gallstone disease, is the most common procedure performed by general surgeons worldwide. The internet remains to be a popular source of medical information. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and readability of information available on the web for patients undergoing LC and to compare the information provided by the National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS websites. 

          Methods

          We searched for the keywords ‘laparoscopic cholecystectomy’ using the three most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo and MSN) and looked at the first 50 websites only. The readability of each document was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. We checked Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification status, whether the sites had been checked by an expert and when the information was last updated.

          Results

          Fifty-five of the possible 150 sites were analysed thus excluding repetitions (n=65), irrelevant content (n=26) or inaccessible links (n=3). Only seven of those were HONcode-certified. The mean FRE score was 46 (range 0-68, SD=16.13). There were 13 NHS sites and 42 non-NHS sites. The mean FRE score for the NHS sites was significantly better compared to the non-NHS sites [58.31 (SD=5.01) vs 42.21 (SD=16.35); p=0.001]. Fifty-four per cent (54%) of the analysed websites had been checked by a medical expert and 22% were updated within the last year.

          Conclusions

          This study highlights the poor quality and readability of information on medical websites. The information provided by NHS sites have significantly better readability compared to non-NHS sites.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review.

          The quality of consumer health information on the World Wide Web is an important issue for medicine, but to date no systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the methods and evidence has been performed. To establish a methodological framework on how quality on the Web is evaluated in practice, to determine the heterogeneity of the results and conclusions, and to compare the methodological rigor of these studies, to determine to what extent the conclusions depend on the methodology used, and to suggest future directions for research. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE (1966 through September 2001), Science Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), Social Sciences Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), LISA (1969 through July 2001), CINAHL (1982 through July 2001), PsychINFO (1988 through September 2001), EMBASE (1988 through June 2001), and SIGLE (1980 through June 2001). We also conducted hand searches, general Internet searches, and a personal bibliographic database search. We included published and unpublished empirical studies in any language in which investigators searched the Web systematically for specific health information, evaluated the quality of Web sites or pages, and reported quantitative results. We screened 7830 citations and retrieved 170 potentially eligible full articles. A total of 79 distinct studies met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 5941 health Web sites and 1329 Web pages, and reporting 408 evaluation results for 86 different quality criteria. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, medical domains, search strategies used, methods and criteria of quality assessment, results (percentage of sites or pages rated as inadequate pertaining to a quality criterion), and quality and rigor of study methods and reporting. Most frequently used quality criteria used include accuracy, completeness, readability, design, disclosures, and references provided. Fifty-five studies (70%) concluded that quality is a problem on the Web, 17 (22%) remained neutral, and 7 studies (9%) came to a positive conclusion. Positive studies scored significantly lower in search (P =.02) and evaluation (P =.04) methods. Due to differences in study methods and rigor, quality criteria, study population, and topic chosen, study results and conclusions on health-related Web sites vary widely. Operational definitions of quality criteria are needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home.

            To assess the reliability of healthcare information on the world wide web and therefore how it may help lay people cope with common health problems. Systematic search by means of two search engines, Yahoo and Excite, of parent oriented web pages relating to home management of feverish children. Reliability of information on the web sites was checked by comparison with published guidelines. Minimum temperature of child that should be considered as fever, optimal sites for measuring temperature, pharmacological and physical treatment of fever, conditions that may warrant a doctor's visit. 41 web pages were retrieved and considered. 28 web pages gave a temperature above which a child is feverish; 26 pages indicated the optimal site for taking temperature, most recommending rectal measurement; 31 of the 34 pages that mentioned drug treatment recommended paracetamol as an antipyretic; 38 pages recommended non-drug measures, most commonly tepid sponging, dressing lightly, and increasing fluid intake; and 36 pages gave some indication of when a doctor should be called. Only four web pages adhered closely to the main recommendations in the guidelines. The largest deviations were in sponging procedures and how to take a child's temperature, whereas there was a general agreement in the use of paracetamol. Only a few web sites provided complete and accurate information for this common and widely discussed condition. This suggests an urgent need to check public oriented healthcare information on the internet for accuracy, completeness, and consistency.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews.

              To describe techniques for retrieval and appraisal used by consumers when they search for health information on the internet. Qualitative study using focus groups, naturalistic observation of consumers searching the world wide web in a usability laboratory, and in-depth interviews. A total of 21 users of the internet participated in three focus group sessions. 17 participants were given a series of health questions and observed in a usability laboratory setting while retrieving health information from the web; this was followed by in-depth interviews. Heidelberg, Germany. Although their search technique was often suboptimal, internet users successfully found health information to answer questions in an average of 5 minutes 42 seconds (median 4 minutes 18 seconds) per question. Participants in focus groups said that when assessing the credibility of a website they primarily looked for the source, a professional design, a scientific or official touch, language, and ease of use. However, in the observational study, no participants checked any "about us" sections of websites, disclaimers, or disclosure statements. In the post-search interviews, it emerged that very few participants had noticed and remembered which websites they had retrieved information from. Further observational studies are needed to design and evaluate educational and technological innovations for guiding consumers to high quality health information on the web.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                3 January 2022
                January 2022
                : 14
                : 1
                : e20897
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of General and Colorectal Surgery, The Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Uxbridge, GBR
                [2 ] Department of Breast Surgery, Wellkin Hospital, Moka, MUS
                Author notes
                Sreelakshmi Mallappa sree.mallappa@ 123456nhs.net
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.20897
                8722460
                255b48e5-c372-4c64-a3de-c294be7e7658
                Copyright © 2022, Mallappa et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 3 January 2022
                Categories
                General Surgery
                Quality Improvement
                Other

                information quality,healthcare information,internet,readability,laparoscopic cholecystectomy

                Comments

                Comment on this article