Evaluation of the Content, Quality, and Readability of Patient Accessible Online Resources Regarding Cataracts.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate the content quality, accuracy, and readability of commonly visited websites by cataract patients contemplating cataract surgery. SETTING: Freely available online information. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Ten websites were evaluated in a cross-sectional study for content analysis using a grading sheet of 40 questions individually scored by three ophthalmologists. JAMA benchmarks were used to assess the quality. An online readability tool, Readable, was used to assess the readability. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the content and accuracy of each website according to a Kruskal-Wallis test (H = 22.623, P = .007). The average score for all websites using the grading sheet was 90.85 out of 160 points, or 57% (SD 29.93, CI 95%±17.69). There was no significant correlation between website rank on Google.com and content quality of the website (r = 0.049, P = .894). No websites complied with all 4 JAMA criteria for authorship. There was no significant correlation between content quality of each website and number of JAMA requirements met (r = -0.563, P = .09). The average Flesch Reading Ease Score for all websites was 52.64 (SD 11.94, CI 95%±7.40), and the average Mean Reading Grade was 10.72 (SD 1.58, CI 95%±0.98). There was a significant difference in Mean Reading Grades between websites (H = 23.703, P = .005). There was no significant correlation between content quality of the website and Mean Reading Grade (r = -0.552, P = .098). CONCLUSION: Commonly accessed online resources on cataracts and cataract surgery are insufficient to provide patients with a clear and complete understanding of their condition as well as available medical and surgical treatment options.