OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of information and readability of the top internet sites for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: An examination of the technical information provision, quality and readability of websites found during an internet search for 'age-related macular degeneration'. Setting Six internet search engines were used to find 26 unique sites on AMD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technical information and quality were assessed using a simple grading system. Readability was assessed using a Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) rating. RESULTS: Twelve organizational, seven academic and seven commercial sites were identified. The average technical scores were 82.3%, 67.9% and 65.2% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.097, one way ANOVA). The average quality scores were 62.2%, 62.6%, and 49.5% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.356, one-way ANOVA). The average SMOG ratings were 16.3, 16.1, and 16.2 for each type of site, respectively (P=0.983, one-way ANOVA). Fifteen of the sites provided details of new and emerging treatments, with seven providing a detailed discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Many websites are now meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive information about AMD and its new treatments. Quality scores were disappointing, with sites needing to provide more evidence of authorship and attribution of information. The majority of sites had SMOG scores above 10, making them difficult for the average person to understand. As physicians we need to help design and direct patients to sites that provide high quality, current information.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of information and readability of the top internet sites for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: An examination of the technical information provision, quality and readability of websites found during an internet search for 'age-related macular degeneration'. Setting Six internet search engines were used to find 26 unique sites on AMD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Technical information and quality were assessed using a simple grading system. Readability was assessed using a Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) rating. RESULTS: Twelve organizational, seven academic and seven commercial sites were identified. The average technical scores were 82.3%, 67.9% and 65.2% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.097, one way ANOVA). The average quality scores were 62.2%, 62.6%, and 49.5% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.356, one-way ANOVA). The average SMOG ratings were 16.3, 16.1, and 16.2 for each type of site, respectively (P=0.983, one-way ANOVA). Fifteen of the sites provided details of new and emerging treatments, with seven providing a detailed discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Many websites are now meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive information about AMD and its new treatments. Quality scores were disappointing, with sites needing to provide more evidence of authorship and attribution of information. The majority of sites had SMOG scores above 10, making them difficult for the average person to understand. As physicians we need to help design and direct patients to sites that provide high quality, current information.
Authors: Tracey L Bessell; Steve McDonald; Chris A Silagy; Jeremy N Anderson; Janet E Hiller; Lloyd N Sansom Journal: Health Expect Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Matthew R Edmunds; Alastair K Denniston; Kristien Boelaert; Jayne A Franklyn; Omar M Durrani Journal: Thyroid Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 6.568