K Delli1, C Livas, F K Spijkervet, A Vissink. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the qualitative standards of the information distributed via the Internet regarding xerostomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was performed for 'xerostomia' and 'dry mouth' separately using four search engines. The first 30 results from each search term-engine combination were pooled for analysis. After excluding promotional product sites, discussion groups, video feeds, scientific articles, non-operative sources, sites with denied direct access through password requirement, non-English language domains, and online medical dictionaries, 50 Web pages were evaluated in terms of readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability using recommended research methodology the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the LIDA instrument. Author and information details were also recorded. RESULTS: The results revealed a variable quality of the available Internet information on xerostomia. The Web sites required advanced reading skills, while LIDA scores for accessibility, usability, and reliability ranged from medium to low with average scores extending from 29.1% to 81.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of information about xerostomia among Web sources presents high variability. The existing discrepancy should be alleviated by referring patients to evidence-based education materials on the Internet. Improvement in xerostomia information e-resources will contribute to a more advanced quality in oral health care.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the qualitative standards of the information distributed via the Internet regarding xerostomia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was performed for 'xerostomia' and 'dry mouth' separately using four search engines. The first 30 results from each search term-engine combination were pooled for analysis. After excluding promotional product sites, discussion groups, video feeds, scientific articles, non-operative sources, sites with denied direct access through password requirement, non-English language domains, and online medical dictionaries, 50 Web pages were evaluated in terms of readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability using recommended research methodology the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the LIDA instrument. Author and information details were also recorded. RESULTS: The results revealed a variable quality of the available Internet information on xerostomia. The Web sites required advanced reading skills, while LIDA scores for accessibility, usability, and reliability ranged from medium to low with average scores extending from 29.1% to 81.3%. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of information about xerostomia among Web sources presents high variability. The existing discrepancy should be alleviated by referring patients to evidence-based education materials on the Internet. Improvement in xerostomia information e-resources will contribute to a more advanced quality in oral health care.