What is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
What is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations
Authors: Irina Yermilov, Warren Chow, Lara Devgan, Martin A. Makary, Clifford Y. Ko [edit item]
Citation: Journal of the American College of Surgeons 207 (4): 580-586. 2008 October.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s): PubMed
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other: Citedin
Services
Format: BibTeX Template from PMID
What is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations is a publication by Irina Yermilov, Warren Chow, Lara Devgan, Martin A. Makary, Clifford Y. Ko.


[edit] Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although there is high-quality information on the Internet, it is difficult for patients to identify high-quality Web sites from those with inaccurate or misleading information. Our goal was to determine specific characteristics of Web search results that yield high-quality information and can be discerned easily by patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A validated rating system was used to evaluate surgical Web sites for appropriateness and adequacy. Web sites were identified using three search term types (technical, descriptive, and layperson) for 10 common surgical procedures. The top three sponsored (paid) and unsponsored (unpaid) Web site matches were identified. The search and analysis were repeated 1 month later.

RESULTS: One hundred forty-five Web sites were retrieved: 90 unsponsored and 55 sponsored. Unsponsored sites had higher mean composite scores than sponsored Web sites (50.6% versus 25%, p < 0.0001). Searches using layperson terms had lower mean composite scores compared with those using technical terms (36.9% versus 47.5%, p < 0.02). Professional Web sites had the highest mean composite scores (66.3%); legal Web sites had the lowest (6.3%). On regression analysis, unsponsored Web sites were associated with higher composite scores (p < 0.0001); number 1 match results (p < 0.02) and using layperson search terms (p < 0.052) were associated with lower mean composite scores. Repeat search results demonstrated no significant differences, except number 3 match results were no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS: To optimize patients' Web searches, surgeons should recommend unsponsored sites; suggest professional society sites, if available; and provide technical search terms. But information on some topics, such as risks of not undergoing surgery, remains poor and requires discussion between the surgeon and patient.

[edit] Research questions

"To determine specific characteristics of Web search results that yield high-quality information and can be discerned easily by patients."

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness, Health information source [edit item]
Domains: Health, Information science [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Case [edit item]
Theories: [edit item]
Research design: Statistical analysis [edit item]
Data source: Websites [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"To optimize patients' Web searches, surgeons should recommend unsponsored sites; suggest professional society sites, if available; and provide technical search terms. But information on some topics, such as risks of not undergoing surgery, remains poor and requires discussion between the surgeon and patient."

[edit] Comments


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "What is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations"RDF feed
AbstractBACKGROUND: Although there is high-qualityBACKGROUND: Although there is high-quality information on the Internet, it is difficult for patients to identify high-quality Web sites from those with inaccurate or misleading information. Our goal was to determine specific characteristics of Web search results that yield high-quality information and can be discerned easily by patients.

STUDY DESIGN: A validated rating system was used to evaluate surgical Web sites for appropriateness and adequacy. Web sites were identified using three search term types (technical, descriptive, and layperson) for 10 common surgical procedures. The top three sponsored (paid) and unsponsored (unpaid) Web site matches were identified. The search and analysis were repeated 1 month later.

RESULTS: One hundred forty-five Web sites were retrieved: 90 unsponsored and 55 sponsored. Unsponsored sites had higher mean composite scores than sponsored Web sites (50.6% versus 25%, p < 0.0001). Searches using layperson terms had lower mean composite scores compared with those using technical terms (36.9% versus 47.5%, p < 0.02). Professional Web sites had the highest mean composite scores (66.3%); legal Web sites had the lowest (6.3%). On regression analysis, unsponsored Web sites were associated with higher composite scores (p < 0.0001); number 1 match results (p < 0.02) and using layperson search terms (p < 0.052) were associated with lower mean composite scores. Repeat search results demonstrated no significant differences, except number 3 match results were no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS: To optimize patients' Web searches, surgeons should recommend unsponsored sites; suggest professional society sites, if available; and provide technical search terms. But information on some topics, such as risks of not undergoing surgery, remains poor and requires discussion between the surgeon and patient.
iscussion between the surgeon and patient.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
ConclusionTo optimize patients' Web searches, surgeoTo optimize patients' Web searches, surgeons should recommend unsponsored sites; suggest professional society sites, if available; and provide technical search terms. But information on some topics, such as risks of not undergoing surgery, remains poor and requires discussion between the surgeon and patient.iscussion between the surgeon and patient.
Data sourceWebsites +
Doi10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22What%2Bis%2Bthe%2Bquality%2Bof%2Bsurgery-related%2Binformation%2Bon%2Bthe%2BInternet%3F%2BLessons%2Blearned%2Bfrom%2Ba%2Bstandardized%2Bevaluation%2Bof%2B10%2Bcommon%2Boperations%22 +
Has authorIrina Yermilov +, Warren Chow +, Lara Devgan +, Martin A. Makary + and Clifford Y. Ko +
Has domainHealth + and Information science +
Has topicComprehensiveness + and Health information source +
Issue4 +
MonthOctober +
Pages580-586 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inJournal of the American College of Surgeons +
Research designStatistical analysis +
Research questionsTo determine specific characteristics of Web search results that yield high-quality information and can be discerned easily by patients.
Revid11,046 +
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleWhat is the quality of surgery-related information on the Internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations
Unit of analysisWebsite +
Urlhttp://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515%2808%2900484-5/abstract +
Volume207 +
Wikipedia coverageCase +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2008 +