|
 Researchers rated 11 top search-engine-ranked websites about
diabetic retinopathy. They found that some were accurate and
complete but too technical, while others were easy to read but
lacked in quality. None scored highly on all of the standards
examined.
"While this paper specifically pertains to diabetic retinopathy, a
very common eye disorder, the takeaway message about the general
quality of online medical resources likely pertains to all medical
conditions," said Dr. Christopher Starr, of the NewYork-Presbyterian
and Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, who wasn't involved in
the study.
Patients increasingly rely on the internet for health-related
queries, and past research shows that online information can
influence patients' decisions about their care, the study team notes
in JAMA Ophthalmology.
To assess the information available online, researchers designed a
26-question survey based on topics a doctor would discuss with a
patient diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy. Three ophthalmology
experts used the survey to assess whether a website answered all the
questions a patient would have about the condition and possible
treatments.
Wikipedia was the top-scoring site, with information that was the
most complete and relevant to patients, while WebMD ranked the
lowest on these measures. Websites set up by American Optometric
Association and American Academy of Ophthalmology also got poor
scores.
"Wikipedia has always done better than a lot of other (encyclopedia)
websites out there. It does surprise me that some of the websites
that are written by ophthalmology organizations did not score
better," noted Dr. Rahul Khurana of Northern California Retina
Vitreous Associates in Mountain View, who wrote an editorial
accompanying the study.
The researchers used a standard readability scale to measure how
easily readers would understand the material. Overall, readability
scores averaged at the 11th-grade level, far higher than the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services recommendation for a
6th-grade reading level.
[to top of second column] |
WebMD got the best score for readability while Wikipedia scored the
worst, although the analysis found no correlation between quality
and readability.
"It's hard to make this information at a sixth or eighth grade
reading level. But to make the information useful for a patient they
have to be able to understand it," Khurana said in a phone
interview.
The researchers also assessed whether a site indicated how current
the information is, clearly identified the authors and contributors,
and provided references for the sources of information. None of the
websites met all of these benchmarks.
Researchers found no correlation between a website's quality and its
search engine ranking.
Involving people who are not physicians in developing health
websites could help ensure that the information is at an appropriate
reading level and answers the common questions raised by patients,
Dr. Jayanth Sridhar of the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the
University of Miami, the study's senior author, said in a phone
interview.
Despite the limitations of existing websites, both Starr and Khurana
said they see some value in using the internet to learn about
medical conditions, as long as patients also consult with a
physician instead of relying on self-diagnosis.
"In reading these websites, the information gathered should be used,
not as dogma, but as the foundation for a more highly informed
one-on-one discussion with your doctor at your next visit," Starr
said.
"And if it's been a while, reading these websites will hopefully
remind diabetic patients of the importance of regular screening
exams for diabetic retinopathy," Starr added.
(Reporting by Saumya Sibi Joseph in Bengaluru)
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
