Dr Google - assessing the reliability and readability of information on general surgical procedures found via search engines

BACKGROUND

The most common general surgical emergency operations are laparoscopic appendicectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hernia repair, hemorrhoidectomy and colectomy. Patients commonly perform an internet search for more information prior to undergoing surgery, which can lead to an inappropriate understanding of their procedure. The aim is to assess the quality of information available on three of the most used search engines.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Google.com, Bing.com and Yahoo.com using the terms related to laparoscopic appendicectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, hernia repair and colectomy. First 20 results from each search engine were collected for evaluation. Results were excluded if they were sponsored, duplicates, academic publications, advertisements, forums, audiovisual tools, social media or any non-English information. Included results were assessed for reliability using DISCERN and JAMA benchmark score. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Score and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG).

RESULTS

Hundred and ninety-seven websites were analysed, 44.7% were published by institutions, 34.5% by health websites and 20.8% by independent surgeons. Mean DISCERN scores for Institutions was 54.6 ± 11.3, independent surgeons 45.9 ± 11.4 and health websites 58.7 ± 10.3. Mean JAMA score for Institutions was 1.0 ± 1.0, independent surgeons 0.1 ± 0.4 and health websites 1.7 ± 1.1. FRE scores for institutions was 51.6 ± 10.3, independent surgeons 40.9 ± 10.2, and health websites 45.7 ± 12.3. SMOG scores were 9.8 ± 1.5 for institutions, 11.4 ± 1.6 for independent surgeons and 10.6 ± 1.7 for health websites.

CONCLUSION

Health information on common general surgical procedures found on search engines are generally fair to good quality but still above the suggested reading level of the population. Information on surgical procedures should be written at recommended reading level of 13-14 years old.

Factors affecting the quality and reliability of online health information

Background

Internet represents a relevant source of information, but reliability of data that can be obtained by the web is still an unsolved issue. Non-reliable online information may have a relevance, especially in taking decisions related to health problems. Uncertainties on the quality of online health data may have a negative impact on health-related choices of citizens.

Objective

This work consisted in a cross-sectional literature review of published papers on online health information. The two main research objectives consisted in the analysis of trends in the use of health web sites and in the quality assessment and reliability levels of web medical sites.

Methods

Literature research was made using four digital reference databases, namely PubMed, British Medical Journal, Biomed, and CINAHL. Entries used were “trustworthy of medical information online,” “survey to evaluate medical information online,” “medical information online,” and “habits of web-based health information users”. Analysis included only papers published in English. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to conduct quality checks of selected works.

Results

Literature analysis using the above entries resulted in 212 studies. Twenty-four articles in line with study objectives, and user characteristics were selected. People more prone to use the internet for obtaining health information were females, younger people, scholars, and employees. Reliability of different online health sites is an issue taken into account by the majority of people using the internet for obtaining health information and physician assistance could help people to surf more safe health web sites.

Conclusions

Limited health information and/or web literacy can cause misunderstandings in evaluating medical data found in the web. An appropriate education plan and evaluation tools could enhance user skills and bring to a more cautious analysis of health information found in the web.