Eunice Ling, Domenico de Pieri, Evenne Loh, Karen M Scott, Stephen C H Li, Heather J Medbury
{"title":"评估他汀相关网站的准确性、可信度和可读性:横断面研究。","authors":"Eunice Ling, Domenico de Pieri, Evenne Loh, Karen M Scott, Stephen C H Li, Heather J Medbury","doi":"10.2196/42849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the greatest burden of mortality worldwide, and statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in its management. A wealth of information pertaining to statins and their side effects is on the internet; however, to date, no assessment of the accuracy, credibility, and readability of this information has been undertaken.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the quality (accuracy, credibility, and readability) of websites likely to be visited by the general public undertaking a Google search of the side effects and use of statin medications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a Google web search, we reviewed the top 20 consumer-focused websites with statin information. Website accuracy, credibility, and readability were assessed based on website category (commercial, not-for-profit, and media), website rank, and the presence or absence of the Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) seal. Accuracy and credibility were assessed following the development of checklists (with 20 and 13 items, respectively). Readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the accuracy score was low (mean 14.35 out of 20). While side effects were comprehensively covered by 18 websites, there was little information about statin use in primary and secondary prevention. None of the websites met all criteria on the credibility checklist (mean 7.8 out of 13). The median Simple Measure of Gobbledegook score was 9.65 (IQR 8.825-10.85), with none of the websites meeting the recommended reading grade of 6, even the media websites. A website bearing the HONcode seal did not mean that the website was more comprehensive or readable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of statin-related websites tended to be poor. Although the information contained was accurate, it was not comprehensive and was presented at a reading level that was too difficult for an average reader to fully comprehend. As such, consumers risk being uninformed about this pharmacotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51757,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10979333/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Eunice Ling, Domenico de Pieri, Evenne Loh, Karen M Scott, Stephen C H Li, Heather J Medbury\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/42849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the greatest burden of mortality worldwide, and statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in its management. A wealth of information pertaining to statins and their side effects is on the internet; however, to date, no assessment of the accuracy, credibility, and readability of this information has been undertaken.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the quality (accuracy, credibility, and readability) of websites likely to be visited by the general public undertaking a Google search of the side effects and use of statin medications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a Google web search, we reviewed the top 20 consumer-focused websites with statin information. Website accuracy, credibility, and readability were assessed based on website category (commercial, not-for-profit, and media), website rank, and the presence or absence of the Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) seal. Accuracy and credibility were assessed following the development of checklists (with 20 and 13 items, respectively). Readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the accuracy score was low (mean 14.35 out of 20). While side effects were comprehensively covered by 18 websites, there was little information about statin use in primary and secondary prevention. None of the websites met all criteria on the credibility checklist (mean 7.8 out of 13). The median Simple Measure of Gobbledegook score was 9.65 (IQR 8.825-10.85), with none of the websites meeting the recommended reading grade of 6, even the media websites. A website bearing the HONcode seal did not mean that the website was more comprehensive or readable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of statin-related websites tended to be poor. Although the information contained was accurate, it was not comprehensive and was presented at a reading level that was too difficult for an average reader to fully comprehend. As such, consumers risk being uninformed about this pharmacotherapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10979333/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Journal of Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/42849\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Journal of Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/42849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study.
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the greatest burden of mortality worldwide, and statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in its management. A wealth of information pertaining to statins and their side effects is on the internet; however, to date, no assessment of the accuracy, credibility, and readability of this information has been undertaken.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the quality (accuracy, credibility, and readability) of websites likely to be visited by the general public undertaking a Google search of the side effects and use of statin medications.
Methods: Following a Google web search, we reviewed the top 20 consumer-focused websites with statin information. Website accuracy, credibility, and readability were assessed based on website category (commercial, not-for-profit, and media), website rank, and the presence or absence of the Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) seal. Accuracy and credibility were assessed following the development of checklists (with 20 and 13 items, respectively). Readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook scores.
Results: Overall, the accuracy score was low (mean 14.35 out of 20). While side effects were comprehensively covered by 18 websites, there was little information about statin use in primary and secondary prevention. None of the websites met all criteria on the credibility checklist (mean 7.8 out of 13). The median Simple Measure of Gobbledegook score was 9.65 (IQR 8.825-10.85), with none of the websites meeting the recommended reading grade of 6, even the media websites. A website bearing the HONcode seal did not mean that the website was more comprehensive or readable.
Conclusions: The quality of statin-related websites tended to be poor. Although the information contained was accurate, it was not comprehensive and was presented at a reading level that was too difficult for an average reader to fully comprehend. As such, consumers risk being uninformed about this pharmacotherapy.