Meghana Kalavar1, Sasha Hubschman1, Julia Hudson1, Ajay E Kuriyan2, Jayanth Sridhar1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA. 2. Mid Atlantic Retina, Retina Service of Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality, content, and readability of information available online on vitreous floater information. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. METHODS: Websites were generated using a Google search of "vitreous floaters treatment" and "[State]" and were analyzed using a standardized checklist of 22 questions. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score. Websites met qualification criteria if they represented U.S.-based institutions, if they provided clinical care and addressed vitreous floater treatment on their website. RESULTS: Of the 1,065 websites screened, 456 were included. Of these, 406 (89%) were private institutions, 24 (5.3%) were academic, and 26 (5.7%) were a combination of private and academic. The average readability score correlated to a 10th-12th grade reading level. Vitreous floater treatment was discussed on 283 (62.1%) websites and 63 (21.8%) websites discussed potential side effects. Google rank was inversely correlated with the depth of explanation (r = -0.114, p = .016). Observation was the main treatment recommended (55.8%, n = 158), followed by laser treatment (27.6%, n = 78), no specific treatment recommendation (11.3%, n = 32), and vitrectomy (5.3%, n = 15). Centers with vitreoretinal surgeons were 16.43 times more likely to recommend vitrectomy than those without vitreoretinal surgeons (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Online information about vitreous floater treatment is variable, and the material is at a higher than recommended reading level for health information. While treatment was discussed by nearly two thirds of websites, less than a quarter mentioned possible complications, and treatment recommendations varied significantly depending on physician training.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality, content, and readability of information available online on vitreous floater information. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. METHODS: Websites were generated using a Google search of "vitreous floaters treatment" and "[State]" and were analyzed using a standardized checklist of 22 questions. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score. Websites met qualification criteria if they represented U.S.-based institutions, if they provided clinical care and addressed vitreous floater treatment on their website. RESULTS: Of the 1,065 websites screened, 456 were included. Of these, 406 (89%) were private institutions, 24 (5.3%) were academic, and 26 (5.7%) were a combination of private and academic. The average readability score correlated to a 10th-12th grade reading level. Vitreous floater treatment was discussed on 283 (62.1%) websites and 63 (21.8%) websites discussed potential side effects. Google rank was inversely correlated with the depth of explanation (r = -0.114, p = .016). Observation was the main treatment recommended (55.8%, n = 158), followed by laser treatment (27.6%, n = 78), no specific treatment recommendation (11.3%, n = 32), and vitrectomy (5.3%, n = 15). Centers with vitreoretinal surgeons were 16.43 times more likely to recommend vitrectomy than those without vitreoretinal surgeons (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Online information about vitreous floater treatment is variable, and the material is at a higher than recommended reading level for health information. While treatment was discussed by nearly two thirds of websites, less than a quarter mentioned possible complications, and treatment recommendations varied significantly depending on physician training.
Entities:
Keywords:
floaters; patient education; vitreoretinal surgery
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: Farah Ahmad; Pamela L Hudak; Kim Bercovitz; Elisa Hollenberg; Wendy Levinson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 5.428