Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPanthagani, Jesse
dc.contributor.authorHamze, Hisham
dc.contributor.authorRiaz, Afrah
dc.contributor.authorMoussa, George
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-19T12:20:32Z
dc.date.available2023-09-19T12:20:32Z
dc.date.issued2021-10-20
dc.identifier.citationPanthagani J, Hamze H, Riaz A, Moussa G. Evaluating the quality and readability of online information on keratoconus treatment. Can J Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr;58(2):150-155. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.09.006en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1715-3360
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jcjo.2021.09.006
dc.identifier.pmid34678173
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14200/2230
dc.description.abstractObjective: This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources on keratoconus treatment. Methods: A Google.com search was conducted on August 9, 2020; 32 web sites were selected for analysis. Popularity was assessed by Google and Alexa rank. The quality of web sites was analyzed using the quality criteria for consumer health information (DISCERN) tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, and the Health On the Net Code of Conduct Certification (HONcode). The readability of the web sites was assessed using the Fleschwebr hea Reading Ease, the Automated Readability Index, and the Fleschted Readability RESULTS: The JAMA benchmark scores, unlike the DISCERN scores, were correlated with the Google and Alexa rank. One web site (3.1%) met all the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 3 (9.3%) others had HONcode certification. The median DISCERN score was 33 (range, 29.6-43.1; maximum possible, 80). Rnib.org.uk scored the highest at 57 (71.0%). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score (52.9 ± 7.1) corresponded to uk" n DIdifficult to read." Thirty-one web sites (96.8%) had a Flesch-Kincaid Grade higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade level. The median Automated Readability Index score was 7 (range, 6.2-7.3). Conclusion: The majority of online information currently available on keratoconus treatment is complex and highly variable. Rnib.org.uk is the best currently available source. Clinicians should inform patients on how to assess the credibility of online information and recommend suitable information sources.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.subjectOphthalmologyen_US
dc.titleEvaluating the quality and readability of online information on keratoconus treatmenten_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleCanadian Journal of Ophthalmology
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
dc.contributor.trustauthorPanthagani, Jesse
dc.contributor.trustauthorHisham, Hamze
dc.contributor.trustauthorMoussa, George
dc.contributor.departmentOphthalmologyen_US
dc.contributor.roleMedical and Dentalen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationSandwell and West Birmingham NHS Trust; Royal Shrewsbury Hospitalen_US
oa.grant.openaccessnaen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Publisher version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record