{"title":"评估有关鼻衄的在线书面信息的可读性和质量。","authors":"Z R Almansoor, R Abrar, H Raja","doi":"10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = -0.15, <i>p</i> = 0.36).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online information on epistaxis is generally of poor quality and low readability.</p>","PeriodicalId":8088,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 (<i>r<sub>s</sub></i> = -0.15, <i>p</i> = 0.36).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online information on epistaxis is generally of poor quality and low readability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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}
Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
