Available web‐based dental implants information for patients. How good is it?. Issue 11 (21st July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Leira‐Feijoo, Yago; Ledesma‐Ludi, Yanina; Seoane‐Romero, Juan M.; Blanco‐Carrión, Juan; Seoane, Juan; Varela‐Centelles, Pablo
• Is Part Of: Clinical oral implants research. Volume 26:Issue 11(2015:Nov.)
• Page Start: 1276
• Page End: 1280
• Publication Date: 2014-07-21
• Subjects: Dental implants -- Research -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12451
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0905-7161

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="clr12451-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="clr12451-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Massive use of the Internet for health issues has raised concerns about the quality of the information available and about consumers' ability to tell "good" from "bad" information.</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12451-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Purpose</title> <p>To assess the quality of patient‐addressed, dental implants‐related websites in terms of reliability, accessibility, usability and readability.</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12451-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Materials and Methods</title> <p>Two search engines (Google and Yahoo) were used in this study. The first 100 sites, as listed by each engine, were considered for the study. Each site was categorised and analysed for quality using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The Flesch‐Kinkaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) and the Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRES) were used to assess legibility.</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12451-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 single websites entered the study. The median score for the DISCERN instrument (3 [2–3]) indicated serious or potentially important shortcoming in the quality of the information obtained. LIDA scores showed modest percentages for accessibility (79.36 [74.60–85.31]) and intermediate for usability (59.20 (50.46‐68.51)) and reliability (55.55 [45.37–66.66]). Legibility indices reached scores within the range of difficult to read (FRES = 51.72 [38.70–55.27]); FKRGL = 12.76 [10.07–14.87]).</p> </sec> <sec id="clr12451-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Available e‐health information on dental implants in English language is difficult to read for the average patient and poor in terms of quality.</p> </sec> </abstract>