在线鼻整形信息的质量和可读性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Antoinette T Nguyen, Rena A Li, Robert D Galiano
{"title":"在线鼻整形信息的质量和可读性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Antoinette T Nguyen, Rena A Li, Robert D Galiano","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients increasingly rely on online resources for rhinoplasty education, yet the readability and reliability of these materials remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the quality and accessibility of online rhinoplasty-related patient education materials using DISCERN scores for reliability and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for readability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search identified 12 studies analyzing 882 websites and 259 videos. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored differences in information quality by source type and publication year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pooled mean DISCERN score across 5 studies (n = 197) was 42.96 (95% confidence interval: 36.28-49.63), indicating moderate quality. Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 93.8%, Q = 80.43, P < 0.0001), reflecting inconsistencies in study methodologies and content sources. Academic websites trended toward higher quality (mean DISCERN: 43.36) than private websites (36.40), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.05906). Readability analysis (n = 95) showed a pooled Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.31 (95% confidence interval: 10.26-10.37), well above the recommended 6th-8th grade level. Heterogeneity was minimal (I2 = 0.0%, Q = 0.84, P = 0.3597), suggesting consistently excessive readability demands. No significant improvements in information quality were observed over time (pre-2020 DISCERN: 42.04 vs post-2020: 43.81; P = 0.8272).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online rhinoplasty materials remain difficult to read and of suboptimal quality, with no meaningful improvements over time. Standardized, accessible, and high-quality patient education resources are needed to support informed decision making.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality and Readability of Online Rhinoplasty Information: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Antoinette T Nguyen, Rena A Li, Robert D Galiano\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients increasingly rely on online resources for rhinoplasty education, yet the readability and reliability of these materials remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the quality and accessibility of online rhinoplasty-related patient education materials using DISCERN scores for reliability and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for readability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search identified 12 studies analyzing 882 websites and 259 videos. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored differences in information quality by source type and publication year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The pooled mean DISCERN score across 5 studies (n = 197) was 42.96 (95% confidence interval: 36.28-49.63), indicating moderate quality. Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 93.8%, Q = 80.43, P < 0.0001), reflecting inconsistencies in study methodologies and content sources. Academic websites trended toward higher quality (mean DISCERN: 43.36) than private websites (36.40), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.05906). Readability analysis (n = 95) showed a pooled Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.31 (95% confidence interval: 10.26-10.37), well above the recommended 6th-8th grade level. Heterogeneity was minimal (I2 = 0.0%, Q = 0.84, P = 0.3597), suggesting consistently excessive readability demands. No significant improvements in information quality were observed over time (pre-2020 DISCERN: 42.04 vs post-2020: 43.81; P = 0.8272).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online rhinoplasty materials remain difficult to read and of suboptimal quality, with no meaningful improvements over time. Standardized, accessible, and high-quality patient education resources are needed to support informed decision making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者越来越依赖在线资源进行鼻整形教育,然而这些材料的可读性和可靠性仍然不一致。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了在线鼻整形相关患者教育材料的质量和可及性,使用了DISCERN评分(可靠性)和Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(可读性)。方法:系统检索了12项研究,分析了882个网站和259个视频。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析。亚组分析和元回归探讨了不同来源类型和出版年份的信息质量差异。结果:5项研究(n = 197)的综合平均DISCERN评分为42.96(95%可信区间:36.28 ~ 49.63),质量中等。异质性较高(I2 = 93.8%, Q = 80.43, P < 0.0001),反映了研究方法和内容来源的不一致性。学术网站(平均辨别度43.36)比私人网站(平均辨别度36.40)有更高的质量趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.05906)。可读性分析(n = 95)显示,合并的Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level为10.31(95%置信区间:10.26-10.37),远高于推荐的6- 8年级水平。异质性最小(I2 = 0.0%, Q = 0.84, P = 0.3597),表明对可读性的要求一直过高。随着时间的推移,信息质量没有显著改善(2020年前:42.04 vs 2020年后:43.81;P = 0.8272)。结论:在线鼻整形材料仍然难以阅读,质量不佳,随着时间的推移没有显著的改善。需要标准化、可获取和高质量的患者教育资源来支持知情决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality and Readability of Online Rhinoplasty Information: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Patients increasingly rely on online resources for rhinoplasty education, yet the readability and reliability of these materials remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the quality and accessibility of online rhinoplasty-related patient education materials using DISCERN scores for reliability and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for readability.

Methods: A systematic search identified 12 studies analyzing 882 websites and 259 videos. Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression explored differences in information quality by source type and publication year.

Results: The pooled mean DISCERN score across 5 studies (n = 197) was 42.96 (95% confidence interval: 36.28-49.63), indicating moderate quality. Heterogeneity was high (I2 = 93.8%, Q = 80.43, P < 0.0001), reflecting inconsistencies in study methodologies and content sources. Academic websites trended toward higher quality (mean DISCERN: 43.36) than private websites (36.40), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.05906). Readability analysis (n = 95) showed a pooled Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.31 (95% confidence interval: 10.26-10.37), well above the recommended 6th-8th grade level. Heterogeneity was minimal (I2 = 0.0%, Q = 0.84, P = 0.3597), suggesting consistently excessive readability demands. No significant improvements in information quality were observed over time (pre-2020 DISCERN: 42.04 vs post-2020: 43.81; P = 0.8272).

Conclusions: Online rhinoplasty materials remain difficult to read and of suboptimal quality, with no meaningful improvements over time. Standardized, accessible, and high-quality patient education resources are needed to support informed decision making.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信