Online resources for information on shoulder arthroplasty: an assessment of quality and readability.

Abstract

Background: Many patients use online resources to educate themselves on surgical procedures and make well-informed healthcare decisions. The aim of our study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online resources exploring shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods: An internet search pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty (partial, anatomic, and reverse) was conducted using the three most popular online search engines. The top 25 results generated from each term in each search engine were included. Webpages were excluded if they were duplicates, advertised by search engines, subpages of other pages, required payments or subscription, or were irrelevant to our scope. Webpages were classified into different source categories. Quality of information was assessed by HONcode certification, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria, and DISCERN benchmark criteria. Webpage readability was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score (FRES).

Results: Our final dataset included 125 web pages. Academic sources were the most common with 45 web pages (36.0%) followed by physician/private practice with 39 web pages (31.2%). The mean JAMA and DISCERN scores for all web pages were 1.96±1.31 and 51.4±10.7, respectively. The total mean FRES score was 44.0±11.0. Only nine web pages (7.2%) were HONcode certified. Websites specified for healthcare professionals had the highest JAMA and DISCERN scores with means of 2.92±0.90 and 57.96±8.91, respectively (P<0.001). HONcode-certified webpages had higher quality and readability scores than other web pages.

Conclusions: Web-based patient resources for shoulder arthroplasty information did not show high-quality scores and easy readability. When presenting medical information, sources should maintain a balance between readability and quality and should seek HONcode certification as it helps establish the reliability and accessibility of the presented information. Level of evidence: IV.