Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:19:21.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of online otolaryngology health information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2018

T C Biggs ,
N Jayakody ,
K Best  and
E V King
T C Biggs*
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Poole NHS Foundation Trust
N Jayakody
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust
K Best
Affiliation:
Department of ENT, Head and Neck Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham
E V King
Affiliation:
Department of ENT Surgery, Poole NHS Foundation Trust
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Timothy Biggs, Department of ENT Surgery, Poole Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Poole BH15 2JB, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Up to 70 per cent of the population search online for medical or health-related information. This study aimed to assess the quality of online health resources available to educate patients on a variety of otolaryngological conditions.

Methods

Two clinicians independently analysed the quality and content of educational websites (patient.co.uk and wikipedia.org) for common and uncommon diagnoses, with cancerresearchuk.org also used to assess two head and neck cancers.

Results

Cancerresearchuk.org, followed by patient.co.uk, scored most highly in their ability to inform readers on a selection of otolaryngological conditions. Although wikipedia.org was less likely to include all relevant information and was more difficult to read, it still provided mostly accurate information.

Conclusion

Where possible, patients should be advised to access professionally maintained health information websites (patient.co.uk and cancerresearchuk.org). However, wikipedia.org can provide adequate information, although it lacks depth and can be difficult to understand.

Keywords

OtolaryngologyInternetHealth ResourcesCancer
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 6 , June 2018 , pp. 560 - 563
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr T Biggs takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Tonsaker, T, Bartlett, G, Trpkov, C. Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield? Can Fam Physician 2014;60:407–8Google ScholarPubMed
2Wikipedia: Statistics. In: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics [15 December 2017]Google Scholar
3Shafee, T, Masukume, G, Kipersztok, L, Das, D, Haggstrom, M, Heilman, J. Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71:1122–9Google ScholarPubMed
4Heilman, JM, West, AG. Wikipedia and medicine: quantifying readership, editors, and the significance of natural language. J Med Internet Res 2015;17:e62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Azzam, A, Bresler, D, Leon, A, Maggio, L, Whitaker, E, Heilman, J et al. Why medical schools should embrace Wikipedia: final-year medical student contributions to Wikipedia articles for academic credit at one school. Acad Med 2017;92:194–200Google Scholar
6Medscape. In: https://www.medscape.com [15 December 2017]Google Scholar
7Flint, P, Haughey, B, Lund, V, Niparko, J, Richardson, M, Robbins, K et al. Cummings Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 5th edn. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier, 2010Google Scholar
8Gleeson, MJ, Clarke, RC. Scott-Brown's Otorhinolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 7th edn. London: Edward Arnold, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Ritchie, L, Tornari, C, Patel, PM, Lakhani, R. Glue ear: how good is the information on the World Wide Web? J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:157–61Google Scholar
10Volsky, PG, Baldassari, CM, Mushti, S, Derkay, CS. Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012;76:1312–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Pusz, MD, Brietzke, SE. How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:462–5Google Scholar
12San Giorgi, MR, de Groot, OS, Dikkers, FG. Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Laryngoscope 2017;127:2293–7Google Scholar
13O'Connell Ferster, AP, Hu, A. Evaluating the quality and readability of Internet information sources regarding the treatment of swallowing disorders. Ear Nose Throat J 2017;96:128–38Google Scholar
14Harris, VC, Links, AR, Hong, P, Walsh, J, Schoo, DP, Tunkel, DE et al. Consulting Dr. Google: quality of online resources about tympanostomy tube placement. Laryngoscope 2018;128:496–501Google Scholar
15Herbert, VG, Frings, A, Rehatschek, H, Richard, G, Leithner, A. Wikipedia–challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education. BMC Med Educ 2015;15:32Google Scholar
16Bould, MD, Hladkowicz, ES, Pigford, AA, Ufholz, LA, Postonogova, T, Shin, E et al. References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature. BMJ 2014;348:g1585Google Scholar