Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.

IF 1.1 4区医学 Q3 SURGERY Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053

Z R Almansoor, R Abrar, H Raja

{"title":"Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.","authors":"Z R Almansoor, R Abrar, H Raja","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.Methods: The terms 'epistaxis' and 'nosebleed' were entered into Google. The first six webpages generated for each search term were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.Results: A total of 37 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence intervals for FRES, FKGL, SMOG and GFOG were 58.9 (55.3-62.5), 9.65 (8.74-10.6), 9.18 (8.57-9.8) and 12.5 (11.5-13.5), respectively. The DISCERN score was 34.3 (32.0-36.5). Weak negative correlation was noted between DISCERN and FRES (rs = -0.15, p = 0.36).Conclusions: Online information on epistaxis is generally of poor quality and low readability.","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053","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

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.

Methods: The terms 'epistaxis' and 'nosebleed' were entered into Google. The first six webpages generated for each search term were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated.

Results: A total of 37 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence intervals for FRES, FKGL, SMOG and GFOG were 58.9 (55.3-62.5), 9.65 (8.74-10.6), 9.18 (8.57-9.8) and 12.5 (11.5-13.5), respectively. The DISCERN score was 34.3 (32.0-36.5). Weak negative correlation was noted between DISCERN and FRES (r_s = -0.15, p = 0.36).

Conclusions: Online information on epistaxis is generally of poor quality and low readability.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

评估有关鼻衄的在线书面信息的可读性和质量。

简介：本研究旨在评估有关鼻衄的在线书面信息的可读性和质量：本研究旨在评估有关鼻衄的在线书面信息的可读性和质量：方法：在谷歌中输入 "鼻衄 "和 "流鼻血 "这两个词。对每个搜索词生成的前六个网页进行筛选。可读性采用弗莱什-金凯德阅读容易程度评分（FRES）、弗莱什-金凯德等级水平（FKGL）、胡言乱语简单测量指数（SMOG）和冈宁雾指数（GFOG）进行评估。质量采用 DISCERN 工具进行评估。计算了质量与可读性之间的斯皮尔曼相关性：共有 37 个网站符合纳入标准。FRES、FKGL、SMOG 和 GFOG 的平均值和 95% 置信区间分别为 58.9（55.3-62.5）、9.65（8.74-10.6）、9.18（8.57-9.8）和 12.5（11.5-13.5）。DISCERN 评分为 34.3（32.0-36.5）。DISCERN 和 FRES 之间存在微弱的负相关（rs = -0.15，p = 0.36）：结论：有关鼻衄的在线信息一般质量较差，可读性较低。

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分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

316

期刊介绍： The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England is the official scholarly research journal of the Royal College of Surgeons and is published eight times a year in January, February, March, April, May, July, September and November. The main aim of the journal is to publish high-quality, peer-reviewed papers that relate to all branches of surgery. The Annals also includes letters and comments, a regular technical section, controversial topics, CORESS feedback and book reviews. The editorial board is composed of experts from all the surgical specialties.