advertising
- Materials and Methods
- The Process of Determining the Related Queries
- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Determining the Keywords Within the Related Queries
- Determining Which Search Engines and Web Sites to Evaluate
- Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Determining the Web Sites
- Categorizing the Web Sites
- Determining Evaluation of Information Content of the Web Sites Related to Diabetic Foot
- Determining the Quality and Readability of the Web Sites
- Statistical Analysis
- Comparing the Information Content, Quality, and Readability of the Web Sites
- Results
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- References
-
1.
International Diabetes Federation: IDF Diabetes Atlas, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, 2015.
-
2.
Bus SA, Van Netten JJ, Hinchliffe RJ, et al: Standards for the development and methodology of the 2019 International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot guidelines. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36: e3267, 2020.
-
3.
Boulton AJ, Armstrong DG, Albert SF, et al: Comprehensive foot examination and risk assessment: a report of the task force of the foot care interest group of the American Diabetes Association, with endorsement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. Diabetes Care 31: 1679, 2008.
-
4.
Armstrong DG, McCulloch D, De Asia R: “Management of Diabetic Foot Ulcers,” in UpToDate, UpToDate Inc, Waltham, MA, 2019.
-
5.
International Diabetes Federation: Time to Act: Diabetes and Foot Care, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, 2005.
-
6.
Khunkaew S, Fernandez R, Sim J: Health-related quality of life among adults living with diabetic foot ulcers: a meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 28: 1413, 2019.
-
7.
Vileikyte L, Pouwer F, Gonzalez JS: Psychosocial research in the diabetic foot: are we making progress? Diabetes Metab Res Rev 36: e3257, 2020.
-
8.
Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, et al: How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Soc Sci Med 64: 1853, 2007.
-
9.
Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, et al: Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA 289: 2400, 2003.
-
10.
Eastin MS: Credibility assessments of online health information: the effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. J Comput-Mediat Comm 6: JCMC643, 2001.
-
11.
Berger M, Wagner TH, Baker LC: Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med 61: 1821, 2005.
-
12.
Scott J: What is the perfect sentence length? 2019. Available at: https://medium.com/@scottydocs/what-is-the-perfect-sentence-length-4690ce8d5048. Accessed December 2, 2020.
-
13.
Shen TS, Driscoll DA, Islam W, et al: Modern internet search analytics and total joint arthroplasty: what are patients asking and reading online? J Arthroplasty 36: 1224, 2020.
-
14.
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA: Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277: 1244, 1997.
-
15.
Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, et al: Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel, Naval Technical Training Command, Millington, TN, 1975.
-
16.
Flesch R: A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32: 221, 1948.
-
17.
Fabricant PD, Dy CJ, Patel RM, et al: Internet search term affects the quality and accuracy of online information about developmental hip dysplasia. J Pediatr Orthop 33: 361, 2013.
-
18.
Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, et al: Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used? Hand 7: 420, 2012.
-
19.
Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, et al: Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine 30: 2695, 2005.
-
20.
Richard J-L, Schuldiner S, Jourdan N, et al: The Internet and the diabetic foot: quality of online information in French language. Diabetes Metab 33: 197, 2007.
-
21.
O'Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al: Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet. Spine 39: E645, 2014.
-
22.
Tangri V, Chande N: Quality of Internet-based information on gastrointestinal diseases. Can J Gastroenterol 25: 93, 2011.
-
23.
Johnson CC, Garcia GH, Liu JN, et al: Internet resources for Tommy John injuries: what are patients reading? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25: e386, 2016.
-
24.
Fisher JH, O’Connor D, Flexman AM, et al: Accuracy and reliability of internet resources for information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 194: 218, 2016.
-
25.
Wu G, Li J: Comparing web search engine performance in searching consumer health information: evaluation and recommendations. Bull Med Libr Assoc 87: 456, 1999.
-
26.
Wang L, Wang J, Wang M, et al: Using Internet search engines to obtain medical information: a comparative study. J Med Internet Res 14: e74, 2012.
-
27.
Griffiths SZ, Albana MF, Bianco LD, et al: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: an assessment of content, quality, and readability of available internet resources. J Arthroplasty 36: 946, 2021.
-
28.
Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, et al: The effect of search term on the quality and accuracy of online information regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg 37: 1881, 2012.
Internet Health Resources for Diabetic Foot Search: The Content, Quality, and Readability of Information on Web Sites
Search for other papers by Mehmet Burtaç Eren in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Feyza Yildiz Aytekin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background: As the incidence of diabetes mellitus increases, the incidence of diabetic foot also increases. This situation, which may lead to devastating complications and progress to limb loss for patients, exposes patients and their social environments to a big crisis. Thus, patients may seek secondary opinions from online sources about information they initially obtained from health institutions. We aimed to evaluate the information content related to diabetic foot on the Internet that is probably used by patients for Internet searching.
Methods: After software optimization and reset, related queries with the keyword diabetic foot were determined on Google Trends. Selected keywords were searched in three search engines, and the results were examined. Web sites were classified into five subcategories (nongovernmental health institution, governmental institution, academic, blog, and university) and evaluated with an information content scale (ICS) based on the literature, Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, and presence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct certificate. The search engines, keywords, and Web site subcategories were investigated with the evaluation criteria.
Results: In terms of finding Web sites eligible for assessment, the Google search engine listed more eligible Web sites than did Bing and Yahoo. Concerning the ICS, there was no significant difference between search engines for total scores (P > .05). Concerning ICS diagnosis and evaluation and ICS total score, academic Web sites scored significantly higher than other subcategories.
Conclusions: Results that can be obtained with an Internet search for diabetic foot depend on the proper keyword selection, Web site type, and search engine to help patients reach more appropriate content.
advertising
