BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of Internet information regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The terms "prostate biopsy", "TRUS biopsy" and "transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate" were separately entered into the each of the top 5 most accessed Internet search engines. Websites were evaluated for accessibility, usability and reliability using the LIDA tool - a validated tool for the assessment of health related websites. Website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level. RESULTS: Following the application of exclusion criteria, 82 unique websites were analyzed. There was a significant difference in scores depending on authorship categories (p ≤ 0.001), with health related charity websites scoring highest (mean 122.29 ± 13.98) and non-academic affiliated institution websites scoring lowest (mean 87 ± 19.76). The presence of advertisements on a website was associated with a lower mean overall LIDA tool score (p = 0.024). Only a single website adhered to the National Institutes for Health recommendations on readability. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates variability in the quality of information available to Internet users regarding TRUS biopsies. Collaboration of website design and clinical acumen are necessary to develop appropriate websites for patient benefit.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of Internet information regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The terms "prostate biopsy", "TRUS biopsy" and "transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate" were separately entered into the each of the top 5 most accessed Internet search engines. Websites were evaluated for accessibility, usability and reliability using the LIDA tool - a validated tool for the assessment of health related websites. Website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level. RESULTS: Following the application of exclusion criteria, 82 unique websites were analyzed. There was a significant difference in scores depending on authorship categories (p ≤ 0.001), with health related charity websites scoring highest (mean 122.29 ± 13.98) and non-academic affiliated institution websites scoring lowest (mean 87 ± 19.76). The presence of advertisements on a website was associated with a lower mean overall LIDA tool score (p = 0.024). Only a single website adhered to the National Institutes for Health recommendations on readability. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates variability in the quality of information available to Internet users regarding TRUS biopsies. Collaboration of website design and clinical acumen are necessary to develop appropriate websites for patient benefit.
Authors: Gregory J Nason; Joseph F Baker; Damien P Byrne; Jacques Noel; David Moore; Patrick J Kiely Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Shane Killeen; Arthur Hennessey; Yahear El Hassan; Kelvin Killeen; Nick Clarke; Kevin Murray; Brian Waldron Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Suzanne Dunne; Niamh Maria Cummins; Ailish Hannigan; Bill Shannon; Colum Dunne; Walter Cullen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 5.428