Cardiology 2013. Part II.

Notes: Almenar, Luis

Zunzunegui, Jose Luis

Baron, Gonzalo

Carrasco, Jose Ignacio

Gomez-Doblas, Juan Jose

Comin, Josep

Barrios, Vivencio

Subirana, M Teresa

Diaz-Molina, Beatriz

eng

spa

Spain

2013/01/16 06:00

Rev Esp Cardiol. 2013 Apr;66(4):290-7. doi: 10.1016/j.recesp.2012.10.022. Epub 2013 Jan 12.

URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23317810

Author Address: Unidad de Insuficiencia Cardiaca y Trasplante, Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Universitario y Politecnico La Fe, Valencia, Espana. Electronic address: lualmenar@gmail.com.

 

 

Reference Type:  Journal Article

Record Number: 949Author: Alsafi, A., Kaya, G., Patel, H. and Hamady, M. S.

Year: 2013

Title: A comparison of the quality of the information available on the internet on interventional radiology, vascular surgery, and cardiology

Journal: J Postgrad Med

Volume: 59

Issue: 1

Pages: 69-75

Date: Jan-Mar

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)

0022-3859 (Linking)

DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.109509

Accession Number: 23525067

Keywords: *Cardiology

Consumer Health Information/*standards

Humans

*Information Dissemination

*Internet

*Radiology, Interventional

Reproducibility of Results

Search Engine

*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.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205