March 9, 2014
Notes: Alonso-Arroyo, Adolfo
Chorro-Gasco, Francisco J
Valderrama-Zurian, Juan C
Rev Esp Cardiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2013.05.010. Epub 2013 Sep 4.
Author Address: Departamento de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentacion, Facultad de Medicina y Odontologia, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Espana. Electronic address: Adolfo.Alonso@uv.es.
UISYS, Unidad de Informacion e Investigacion Social y Sanitaria, Universidad de Valencia-CSIC, IHMC <<Lopez Pinero>>, Valencia, Espana.
Departamento de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentacion, Facultad de Medicina y Odontologia, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Espana.
Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofia, Cordoba, Espana.
Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valencia, INCLIVA, Departamento de Medicina de la Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Espana.
Instituto de Documentacion y Tecnologias de la Informacion, Universidad Catolica de Valencia, Valencia, Espana.
Reference Type: Journal Article
Record Number: 710Author: Alsafi, A., Kaya, G., Patel, H. and Hamady, M. S.
Title: A comparison of the quality of the information available on the internet on interventional radiology, vascular surgery, and cardiology
Journal: J Postgrad Med
Short Title: A comparison of the quality of the information available on the internet on interventional radiology, vascular surgery, and cardiology
Alternate Journal: Journal of postgraduate medicine
ISSN: 0022-3859 (Print)
Accession Number: 23525067
Consumer Health Information/*standards
Reproducibility of Results
*Vascular Surgical Procedures
Abstract: CONTEXT AND AIMS: Internet use is rapidly expanding and increasingly plays a substantial role in patient education. We sought to evaluate and compare the quality of information available to patients online on three closely linked specialties: Interventional radiology (IR), cardiology, and vascular surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the leading three search engines for the terms: “Interventional Radiology”, “cardiology,” and “vascular surgery,” collating the top 50 hits from each search. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant sites, 43, 25, and 36 sites remained, respectively. Sites were analyzed using the LIDA instrument (an online tool for assessing health-related websites) and Fleisch Reading Ease Scores (FRES) were compared across the different search terms and correlated with the country of origin and certification by the Health on the Net (HON) Foundation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in the total LIDA, accessibility, usability or reliability scores between the three specialties. HONCode certification was associated with higher LIDA (83.1+/-1.6 vs. 71.53+/-0.8 ( P<0.0001)), reliability (75.7+/-3.6 vs. 49.0+/-1.6 ( P<0.0001)) and FRES (37.4+/-4.0 vs. 29.7+/-1.4 ( P=0.0441)). CONCLUSION: Websites are generally well designed and easy to use; the majority however, lacks currency and reliability. Despite similarity in quality of online information, there is a disparity in knowledge of IR; this may be due to low web-traffic figures of IR sites. Wikipedia’s user-generated content, ranks highly in major search engines, as such; this could serve as means of disseminating reliable health information to patients.