| Literature DB >> 35859974 |
Yasir Hidayat1, Ashley Ghanshyam Rajkoomar1, Muhammad Abrar Qadeer1, Lester G D'Souza1.
Abstract
Introduction Vertebral compression fractures are among the most common fragility fractures with significant morbidity and mortality. With an aging population, the incidence of these fractures is on the rise. In this age of social and electronic media, there is a plethora of online information available. While access to healthcare information has increased, most of these websites remain beyond the comprehension of their target audience. Objective To assess the readability and quality of online information regarding osteoporotic vertebral fractures. Methods A search for the terms osteoporotic vertebral fractures, osteoporotic spinal fractures, and fragility spinal fractures was performed using the top five search engines. Eighty-three websites were identified and analyzed. Quality assessment was done using the DISCERN and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) tools while readability was analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch Kincaid Grade (FKG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Results The mean DISCERN score was 39.55 while the mean JAMA was 2.2. Readability testing revealed a mean FRES score of 49.26 with 16 websites having a score of > 60, FKG 8.38, and GFI of 9.51. 33 websites had an FKG score of 8 or below 8. Conclusion The above results indicate that web-based information relating to osteoporotic vertebral fractures is of variable quality and readability. Although 40 % of websites are at the eighth grade or below level, only 16 % of websites are above the FRES score of 60, which makes online information difficult to comprehend by an average patient.Entities:
Keywords: fragility spinal fractures; online health information; orthopedic surgery; osteoporotic spinal fractures; osteoporotic vertebral fractures
Year: 2022 PMID: 35859974 PMCID: PMC9288661 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.26029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1Flowchart demonstrating internet search methodology
Figure 2Authorship classification according to affiliation
Figure 3DISCERN readability data
Quality analysis showing means scores for individual groups
Overall results for each assessment tool
DISCERN: DISCERN Instrument; FKGL: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; FRES: Flesch Reading Ease Score; GFI: Gunning Fog Index; HON: Health on the Net Foundation; JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria; n: number; r: range
| Category | No of sites | JAMA Mean (range) | DISCERN Mean (range) | HON code-certified | FRES Mean (range) | FKG Mean (range) | GFI Mean (range) |
| Academic | 38 | 2.7 (1-4) | 42.2 (26–66) | 6 | 47.5 (14.1–108.8) | 8.6 (1.1–18.5) | 9.7 (2.4–18.5) |
| Physician | 9 | 2.5 (1-4) | 39.5 (28-54) | 6 | 57.3 (34.8-110.3) | 7.1 (-0.2-10.8) | 8.4 (3.4-11.8) |
| Non Physician | 15 | 1.8 (1-3) | 37.1 (26-52) | 2 | 50.9 (37.8-91.8) | 7.9 (1-11.9) | 9.1 (2.1-15.7) |
| Commercial | 19 | 1.2 (1-3) | 36.7 (29-53) | 2 | 46.7 (21.3-62.3) | 8.6 (6.4-11.3) | 9.7 (6.8-11.9) |
| Social Media | 2 | 1.5 (1-2) | 32.5 (29-36) | - | 55.7 (55-56.5) | 9.4 (9.2-9.6) | 10.5 (10.1-11) |
| Total | n = 83 | Mean 2.2 | Mean 39.5 | n = 16 | Mean 49.2 | Mean 8.3 | Mean 9.5 |
Figure 4JAMA benchmark score
JAMA mean scores according to affiliation and HON certification
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
Figure 5Readability data
FKG: Flesch-Kincaid Grade; FRES: Flesch Reading Ease Score; GFI: Gunning Fog Index
Supplementary data
| 1 |
|
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 | https://www.spine- |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 | https://www.osteoporosis.foundation/health-professionals/fragility-fractures/treatment |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 | https://www.cedars- |
| 28 | https://www.spinal- |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 | https://www.physio- |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 | https://www.joint- |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 | https://patient.info/doctor/fragility-fractures |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
|