Peterlin B Lee, Gambini-Suarez Eduardo, Lidicker Jeffrey, Levin Morris
Drexel University College of Medicine-Neurology, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Headache. 2008 Mar;48(3):378-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00951.x. Epub 2007 Nov 13.
To evaluate the quality of websites providing cluster headache information for patients and healthcare providers.
The Internet has become an increasingly important source of healthcare information. However, limited data exist regarding the quality of websites providing headache information.
This was a cross-sectional study conducted in February 2007. Websites providing cluster headache information were determined on the search engine MetaCrawler and classified as either patient oriented or healthcare provider oriented. The overall quality of each site was evaluated using a score system. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Score (FKRS). Website quality was analyzed based on ownership, purpose, authorship, author qualifications, attribution, interactivity, and currency. The technical quality of the cluster headache information was analyzed based on content specific to cluster headache. The final ranking, based on the sum of the ranks of all 3 categories, was determined and then contrasted between the patient-oriented and healthcare professional-oriented websites using 2-sample t-tests.
Of the first 40 websites found on MetaCrawler, 72.5% were advertisements, unrelated to headache, or repeated websites. Although the standard US writing averages are at a seventh to eighth grade level, the mean FKRS of all sites was at a 12th grade level of difficulty, with no significant difference between the patient-oriented or healthcare provider-oriented websites (P = .54). Of a total possible 14 points, the overall mean quality component score was 9.9 for all sites; and of a total possible 23 points, the overall mean technical component score was 13.9. There was no significant difference for either the quality or technical component scores between patient-oriented or healthcare provider-oriented websites (P = .45 and P = .80, respectively).
There are numerous cluster headache websites that can be found on the Internet. The quality of most of the websites dedicated to cluster headache is mediocre, and although there are some excellent cluster headache websites, these sites may be challenging for many users to locate. There was no significant difference in the overall quality of websites oriented for patients or healthcare providers providing cluster headache information evaluated in this study. In addition, websites providing high-quality cluster headache information are written at an educational level too high for a significant portion of the general population to fully utilize. Physicians should strongly consider providing lists of quality websites on cluster headache for their patients.
评估为患者和医疗服务提供者提供丛集性头痛信息的网站质量。
互联网已成为医疗信息日益重要的来源。然而，关于提供头痛信息的网站质量的数据有限。
这是一项于2007年2月进行的横断面研究。在搜索引擎MetaCrawler上确定提供丛集性头痛信息的网站，并将其分类为面向患者或面向医疗服务提供者。使用评分系统评估每个网站的整体质量。使用弗莱什-金凯德年级阅读水平评分（FKRS）评估可读性。基于所有权、目的、作者身份、作者资质、归因、交互性和时效性分析网站质量。基于丛集性头痛的特定内容分析丛集性头痛信息的技术质量。根据所有三个类别的排名总和确定最终排名，然后使用双样本t检验在面向患者和面向医疗专业人员的网站之间进行对比。
在MetaCrawler上找到的前40个网站中，72.5%是广告、与头痛无关或重复的网站。尽管美国标准写作平均水平为七年级至八年级，但所有网站的平均FKRS为十二年级难度水平，面向患者或面向医疗服务提供者的网站之间无显著差异（P = 0.54）。在总共可能的14分中，所有网站的整体平均质量成分得分为9.9分；在总共可能的23分中，整体平均技术成分得分为13.9分。面向患者或面向医疗服务提供者的网站在质量或技术成分得分上均无显著差异（分别为P = 0.45和P = 0.80）。
互联网上可以找到许多丛集性头痛网站。大多数专门提供丛集性头痛信息的网站质量一般，尽管有一些优秀的丛集性头痛网站，但这些网站可能对许多用户来说难以找到。在本研究中评估的为患者或医疗服务提供者提供丛集性头痛信息的网站的整体质量没有显著差异。此外，提供高质量丛集性头痛信息的网站的教育水平过高，以至于很大一部分普通人群无法充分利用。医生应强烈考虑为患者提供丛集性头痛相关的高质量网站列表。
