OBJECTIVE: The World Wide Web is a commonly used source of health information for patients. The objective of this study is to assess the quality and accuracy of information on the internet regarding ear tubes and their insertion. METHODS: Websites were identified from Google, Yahoo and MSN using the search terms 'myringotomy', 'tympanostomy', 'grommet' and 'ear tubes'. The first 40 consecutive websites from each search engine using each search term were potentially eligible for the study. Quality of information was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and readability using the Flesch Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula. As the DISCERN instrument is subjective, both authors rated each website. Specific facts related to ear tubes were identified from each website such as the indications for and complications of ear tubes which were evaluated for accuracy and consistency. RESULTS: Of the 480 potentially eligible websites, 84 were included in the study. The mean DISCERN score for all websites was 38.5 (range 18-64) and the mean readability score was 49.4 (range 5.7-71.6). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade level was 10.1 (range 6.6-12). Key facts quoted on websites regarding ear tube information such as indications for insertion and complications are very variable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, internet information regarding ear tubes is of mixed quality and the readability is generally low. Certain topics such as the number of patients that require repeat ear tube insertion and advice on bathing and showering with ear tubes were poorly described.
OBJECTIVE: The World Wide Web is a commonly used source of health information for patients. The objective of this study is to assess the quality and accuracy of information on the internet regarding ear tubes and their insertion. METHODS: Websites were identified from Google, Yahoo and MSN using the search terms 'myringotomy', 'tympanostomy', 'grommet' and 'ear tubes'. The first 40 consecutive websites from each search engine using each search term were potentially eligible for the study. Quality of information was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and readability using the Flesch Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula. As the DISCERN instrument is subjective, both authors rated each website. Specific facts related to ear tubes were identified from each website such as the indications for and complications of ear tubes which were evaluated for accuracy and consistency. RESULTS: Of the 480 potentially eligible websites, 84 were included in the study. The mean DISCERN score for all websites was 38.5 (range 18-64) and the mean readability score was 49.4 (range 5.7-71.6). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade level was 10.1 (range 6.6-12). Key facts quoted on websites regarding ear tube information such as indications for insertion and complications are very variable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, internet information regarding ear tubes is of mixed quality and the readability is generally low. Certain topics such as the number of patients that require repeat ear tube insertion and advice on bathing and showering with ear tubes were poorly described.
Authors: Vishalli Ghai; Vasilios Pergialiotis; Haider Jan; James M N Duffy; Stergios K Doumouchtsis Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.894