评估他汀相关网站的准确性、可信度和可读性:横断面研究。

IF 1.9 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Interactive Journal of Medical Research Pub Date : 2024-03-14 DOI:10.2196/42849
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":"13 ","pages":"e42849"},"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\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"e42849\"},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:心血管疾病(CVD)是全球最大的死亡负担,他汀类药物是治疗该疾病最常用的处方药。互联网上有大量与他汀类药物及其副作用有关的信息,但迄今为止,尚未对这些信息的准确性、可信度和可读性进行过评估:本研究旨在评估在谷歌上搜索他汀类药物的副作用和使用方法的普通大众可能访问的网站的质量(准确性、可信度和可读性):方法:在谷歌网页搜索后,我们查看了前 20 个以消费者为中心的他汀类药物信息网站。根据网站类别(商业、非营利和媒体)、网站排名以及是否有《网络健康行为准则》(HONcode)印章来评估网站的准确性、可信度和可读性。准确性和可信度是在制定检查表(分别包含 20 个和 13 个项目)后进行评估的。可读性使用 "简单拗口度量"(Simple Measure of Gobbledegook)评分进行评估:总体而言,准确性得分较低(平均 14.35 分,满分 20 分)。虽然有 18 个网站全面介绍了他汀类药物的副作用,但关于他汀类药物用于一级和二级预防的信息却很少。没有一个网站符合可信度核对表的所有标准(13 分中的平均值为 7.8 分)。垃圾信息简单衡量标准的中位数为 9.65 分(IQR 为 8.825-10.85),没有一个网站达到建议的 6 级阅读标准,即使是媒体网站也不例外。盖有 HONcode 印章的网站并不意味着其内容更全面或可读性更高:他汀相关网站的质量往往较差。结论:他汀类药物相关网站的质量往往较差,虽然所含信息准确,但并不全面,而且其阅读水平对于普通读者来说难以完全理解。因此,消费者有可能对这种药物疗法一无所知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

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
Interactive Journal of Medical Research
Interactive Journal of Medical Research MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Whole-Body Cryotherapy Reduces Systemic Inflammation in Healthy Adults: Pilot Cohort Study. Social Cohesion and COVID-19: Integrative Review. Patient Profile and Cost Savings of Long-Term Care in a Spanish Hospital: Retrospective Observational Study. Benefits and Risks of AI in Health Care: Narrative Review. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Toward Salt Consumption and Its Association With 24-Hour Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion in Adults Living in Mexico City: Cross-Sectional Study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1