What is the quality of the information available on the internet for patients suffering with sciatica?

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Marco Mancuso-Marcello, Andreas K Demetriades
{"title":"What is the quality of the information available on the internet for patients suffering with sciatica?","authors":"Marco Mancuso-Marcello,&nbsp;Andreas K Demetriades","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.20.05243-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sciatica is a common neurological condition with a wide variety of clinical specialists and allied health professionals involved, and a broad range of treatment options. We sought to assess the quality of information available on the internet.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An internet search for 'sciatica' was performed using 'Google'. The first fifty links were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire for health consumers and providers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After exclusions, 44 websites were assessed. Only 37% of sites had clear aims and objectives; 79% provided relevant information; 81% did not provide clear sources of their information; 67% had no indication of when the information was compiled or updated; 63% clarified that more than one treatment option was available; only 28% described in moderate to extensive detail how the various treatment modalities might work; only 14% informed patients of potential risks and complications for each treatment. The biased and/or unbalanced websites amounted to 40%, offering greater detail about one treatment modality over others. Overall, 93% of assessed websites did not inform patients of the consequences/natural history if no treatment were undertaken; and 91% did not describe the potential impact of treatment and how it could affect quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the role that the internet plays in everyday life, information on the common and debilitating condition of sciatica is mostly of low-to-moderate quality, and with serious shortcomings. Healthcare stakeholders ought to be aware of the risks of misinformation and ensure that health-related internet website design and upkeep is guided by instruments such as DISCERN.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":"67 3","pages":"355-359"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.20.05243-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sciatica is a common neurological condition with a wide variety of clinical specialists and allied health professionals involved, and a broad range of treatment options. We sought to assess the quality of information available on the internet.

Methods: An internet search for 'sciatica' was performed using 'Google'. The first fifty links were assessed using the DISCERN instrument, a validated questionnaire for health consumers and providers.

Results: After exclusions, 44 websites were assessed. Only 37% of sites had clear aims and objectives; 79% provided relevant information; 81% did not provide clear sources of their information; 67% had no indication of when the information was compiled or updated; 63% clarified that more than one treatment option was available; only 28% described in moderate to extensive detail how the various treatment modalities might work; only 14% informed patients of potential risks and complications for each treatment. The biased and/or unbalanced websites amounted to 40%, offering greater detail about one treatment modality over others. Overall, 93% of assessed websites did not inform patients of the consequences/natural history if no treatment were undertaken; and 91% did not describe the potential impact of treatment and how it could affect quality of life.

Conclusions: Despite the role that the internet plays in everyday life, information on the common and debilitating condition of sciatica is mostly of low-to-moderate quality, and with serious shortcomings. Healthcare stakeholders ought to be aware of the risks of misinformation and ensure that health-related internet website design and upkeep is guided by instruments such as DISCERN.

对于患有坐骨神经痛的患者,网上可获得的信息质量如何?
背景:坐骨神经痛是一种常见的神经系统疾病,有多种临床专家和联合卫生专业人员参与,治疗方案也很广泛。我们试图评估互联网上可用信息的质量。方法:使用Google搜索“坐骨神经痛”。前50个环节是使用DISCERN工具进行评估的,这是一份针对保健消费者和提供者的有效问卷。结果:排除后共评估44个网站。只有37%的网站有明确的目的和目标;提供相关信息的79%;81%的人没有提供明确的信息来源;67%的人不知道信息是何时编译或更新的;63%的人明确表示有一种以上的治疗方案;只有28%的人描述了各种治疗方式如何发挥作用的中等到广泛的细节;只有14%的患者告知每种治疗的潜在风险和并发症。有偏见和/或不平衡的网站占40%,提供了更多关于一种治疗方式的细节。总体而言,93%的评估网站没有告知患者如果不进行治疗的后果/自然病史;91%的人没有描述治疗的潜在影响以及它如何影响生活质量。结论:尽管互联网在日常生活中发挥着重要作用,但关于坐骨神经痛常见和衰弱状况的信息大多为中低质量,并且存在严重缺陷。医疗保健利益相关者应该意识到错误信息的风险,并确保与健康相关的互联网网站的设计和维护由诸如DISCERN之类的工具指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信