Online Information Related to Symptoms of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Google Search Analysis

Modern Internet Search Analytics: Is There a Difference in What Patients are Searching Regarding the Operative and Nonoperative Management of Scoliosis?

STUDY DESIGN

Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the most searched types of questions and online resources implicated in the operative and nonoperative management of scoliosis.

METHODS

Six terms related to operative and nonoperative scoliosis treatment were searched on Google's People Also Ask section on October 12, 2023. The Rothwell classification was used to sort questions into fact, policy, or value categories, and associated websites were classified by type. Fischer's exact tests compared question type and websites encountered between operative and nonoperative questions. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level.

RESULTS

The most common questions concerning operative and nonoperative management were fact (53.4%) and value (35.5%) questions, respectively. The most common subcategory pertaining to operative and nonoperative questions were specific activities/restrictions (21.7%) and evaluation of treatment (33.3%), respectively. Questions on indications/management (13.2% vs 31.2%, P < .001) and evaluation of treatment (10.1% vs 33.3%, P < .001) were associated with nonoperative scoliosis management. Medical practice websites were the most common website to which questions concerning operative (31.9%) and nonoperative (51.4%) management were directed to. Operative questions were more likely to be directed to academic websites (21.7% vs 10.0%, P = .037) and less likely to be directed to medical practice websites (31.9% vs 51.4%, P = .007) than nonoperative questions.

CONCLUSIONS

During scoliosis consultations, spine surgeons should emphasize the postoperative recovery process and efficacy of conservative treatment modalities for the operative and nonoperative management of scoliosis, respectively. Future research should assess the impact of website encounters on patients' decision-making.

GPT-4 as a Source of Patient Information for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Analysis Against Google Web Search

STUDY DESIGN

Comparative study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare Google and GPT-4 in terms of (1) question types, (2) response readability, (3) source quality, and (4) numerical response accuracy for the top 10 most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

"Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" was searched on Google and GPT-4 on December 18, 2023. Top 10 FAQs were classified according to the Rothwell system. Source quality was evaluated using JAMA benchmark criteria and readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Differences in JAMA scores, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, and word count between platforms were analyzed using Student's t-tests. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level.

RESULTS

Frequently asked questions from Google were varied, while GPT-4 focused on technical details and indications/management. GPT-4 showed a higher Flesch-Kincaid grade level (12.96 vs 9.28, P = .003), lower Flesch Reading Ease score (37.07 vs 54.85, P = .005), and higher JAMA scores for source quality (3.333 vs 1.800, P = .016). Numerically, 6 out of 10 responses varied between platforms, with GPT-4 providing broader recovery timelines for ACDF.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates GPT-4's ability to elevate patient education by providing high-quality, diverse information tailored to those with advanced literacy levels. As AI technology evolves, refining these tools for accuracy and user-friendliness remains crucial, catering to patients' varying literacy levels and information needs in spine surgery.

Health Literacy Analytics of Accessible Patient Resources in Cardiovascular Medicine: What are Patients Wanting to Know?

Introduction

There remains an increasing utilization of internet-based resources as a first line of medical knowledge. Among patients with cardiovascular disease, these resources often are relied upon for numerous diagnostic and therapeutic modalities. However, the reliability of this information is not fully understood. The aim of this study was to provide a descriptive profile on the literacy quality, readability, and transparency of publicly available educational resources in cardiology.

Methods

The frequently asked questions and associated online educational articles on common cardiovascular diagnostic and therapeutic interventions were investigated using publicly available data from the Google RankBrain machine learning algorithm after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Independent raters evaluated questions for Rothwell's Classification and readability calculations.

Results

Collectively, 520 questions and articles were evaluated across 13 cardiac interventions, resulting in 3,120 readability scores. The sources of articles were most frequently from academic institutions followed by commercial sources. Most questions were classified as "Fact" at 76.0% (n = 395), and questions regarding "Technical Details" of each intervention were the most common subclassification at 56.3% (n = 293).

Conclusions

Our data show that patients most often are using online search query programs to seek information regarding specific knowledge of each cardiovascular intervention rather than form an evaluation of the intervention. Additionally, these online patient educational resources continue to not meet grade-level reading recommendations.