Alberto Tozzi · Analysis of readability and quality of web pages addressing both common and uncommon topics in pediatric surgery
Article1 min read·Published May 2012Older

Analysis of readability and quality of web pages addressing both common and uncommon topics in pediatric surgery

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov shows its articles on its own site.

Read the article on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ↗

Article · May 2012 · 1 min read

In brief

In brief

This study evaluates the quality and readability of online medical information for common versus rare pediatric surgical conditions using HON Code standards and Flesch readability metrics. Results show websites addressing common conditions had significantly higher quality scores, though readability levels were similar across both groups at 8th-grade level.

Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.

Alberto Tozzi

Introduction: The quality medical information on Internet is highly variable. The aim of this study is to determine if Web pages addressing four common pediatric surgical topics (CT) and four uncommon pediatric surgical topics (UT) differ significantly in terms of quality and/or characteristics. Materials And Methods: We performed an Internet search regarding four CT, addressing more frequent clinical conditions with an incidence≤1:1.500 children (inguinal hernia, varicocele, umbilical hernia, and phimosis) and four UT addressing less frequent clinical conditions with an incidence≥1:1.500 children (anorectal malformation, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, and omphalocele), using a popular search engine (Google). We evaluated readability with the Flesch reading ease (FRE) and the Flesch-Kincaid grade (FKG) and quality of content using the site checker of the HON Code of Conduct (HON code) for each website. Results: In this study, 30/40 websites addressing CT versus 33/50 addressing UT responded to our criteria. No differences statistically significant in advertisements between the two groups were found (15 vs. 16%) (p>0.05). No differences were found in terms of time from last update, owner/author type, financial disclosure, accreditation, or advertising. CT had higher quality level according to the HON code (6.54±1.38 vs. 5.05±1.82) (p<0.05). Mean FRE was 47.38±14.27 versus 46.24±14.56, respectively, for CT and UT (p>0.05). The mean FKG was 8.1±1.9 for CT versus 8±1.9 for UT

Read it at the source ↗

Try
Intelligent Search· scoped to this article · not medical adviceSearch the whole library →