Yusuf Moolla1, Ahmed Adam2, Marlon Perera3, Nathan Lawrentschuk4. 1. Department of Oncology, Klerksdorp Hospital, Klerksdorp/Tshepong Hospital Complex, Klerksdorp, North West Province. 2. Department of Urology, Helen Joseph Hospital & Department of Paediatric Urology, Rahima Moosa Mother & Child (Coronation) Hospital, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, VIC and Department of Surgery, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD. 4. Department of Surgery, Austin Health, University of Melbourne, and Olivia-Newton John Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, and Department of Surgical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'. METHODS: Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net. RESULTS: 33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%). CONCLUSION: Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'. METHODS: Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net. RESULTS: 33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%). CONCLUSION: Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
Authors: G K Berland; M N Elliott; L S Morales; J I Algazy; R L Kravitz; M S Broder; D E Kanouse; J A Muñoz; J A Puyol; M Lara; K E Watkins; H Yang; E A McGlynn Journal: JAMA Date: 2001 May 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jose Yunam Cuan-Baltazar; Maria José Muñoz-Perez; Carolina Robledo-Vega; Maria Fernanda Pérez-Zepeda; Elena Soto-Vega Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2020-04-09