Ophthalmol Glaucoma. 2022 Aug 05. pii: S2589-4196(22)00129-6. [Epub ahead of print]
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality and reliability of medical information, the technical quality of the presentation of information, and readability of informational websites that publish content on the definition, causes, symptoms, and/or treatment of glaucoma.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the information published on websites with regards to glaucoma.
SUBJECTS, PARTICIPANTS, AND/OR CONTROLS: The top 150 websites populated on a Google search, by using the keywords "glaucoma," "high intraocular pressure," and "high eye pressure," were the websites chosen for evaluation.
METHODS: Intervention, or Testing: Two independent reviewers assessed the quality and reliability of each website using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria. Reviewers also evaluated the technical quality by determining each website's ability to satisfy ten unique features. Readability assessment was completed through the use of Readability Studio software (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH, USA).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of information was analyzed through the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria. Evaluated metrics to assess readability were the Bormuth Cloze Mean, Bormuth Grade Placement, Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Coleman Liau Index, Gunning Fog Score, SMOG Index, Readability Score, Fry Estimate, Raygor Estimate, and the Overall Mean Readability. A separate sub-analysis involved the categorization of websites into Institutional and Private categories.
RESULTS: Readability was poor amongst all websites, with most websites requiring above an 11th grade reading level. The overall mean DISCERN score ± standard deviation (SD) was 3.0 ± 0.4, mean HONcode score (±SD) was 9.6 ± 1.8, and mean JAMA score (±SD) was 2.1 ± 1.1. Reviewers had moderate to excellent interrater reliability. Institutional websites (n=39) had a higher mean DISCERN score (3.18 ± 0.33 vs. 2.95 ± 0.39, p<0.05) and mean HONcode score (10.18 ± 1.90 vs. 9.34 ± 1.71, p<0.05) when compared to Private websites (n=111). Technical quality was higher amongst Institutional websites (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: An overwhelming majority of websites presented information that was of low quality, reliability, and readability. Institutional websites generally received higher scores than Private websites, but overall scores were still substandard, prompting the need for an improvement of online information on glaucoma.
Keywords: glaucoma; online information; quality; readability