• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

关于耳管主题的互联网信息的质量和准确性。

The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes.

作者信息

McKearney Thomas C, McKearney Richard M

机构信息

University of Southampton, UK.

出版信息

Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Jun;77(6):894-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021. Epub 2013 Apr 12.

DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021
PMID:23587675
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The World Wide Web is a commonly used source of health information for patients. The objective of this study is to assess the quality and accuracy of information on the internet regarding ear tubes and their insertion.

METHODS

Websites were identified from Google, Yahoo and MSN using the search terms 'myringotomy', 'tympanostomy', 'grommet' and 'ear tubes'. The first 40 consecutive websites from each search engine using each search term were potentially eligible for the study. Quality of information was assessed using the DISCERN instrument and readability using the Flesch Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Readability Formula. As the DISCERN instrument is subjective, both authors rated each website. Specific facts related to ear tubes were identified from each website such as the indications for and complications of ear tubes which were evaluated for accuracy and consistency.

RESULTS

Of the 480 potentially eligible websites, 84 were included in the study. The mean DISCERN score for all websites was 38.5 (range 18-64) and the mean readability score was 49.4 (range 5.7-71.6). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade level was 10.1 (range 6.6-12). Key facts quoted on websites regarding ear tube information such as indications for insertion and complications are very variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, internet information regarding ear tubes is of mixed quality and the readability is generally low. Certain topics such as the number of patients that require repeat ear tube insertion and advice on bathing and showering with ear tubes were poorly described.

摘要

目的

万维网是患者常用的健康信息来源。本研究的目的是评估互联网上有关耳管及其插入的信息的质量和准确性。

方法

使用搜索词“鼓膜切开术”“鼓膜造孔术”“通气管”和“耳管”从谷歌、雅虎和MSN中识别网站。使用每个搜索词从每个搜索引擎中连续获取的前40个网站可能符合该研究的条件。使用DISCERN工具评估信息质量,并使用弗莱什阅读易读性公式和弗莱什-金凯德年级水平阅读易读性公式评估可读性。由于DISCERN工具具有主观性,两位作者对每个网站进行了评分。从每个网站中识别出与耳管相关的具体事实,如耳管的适应症和并发症,并对其准确性和一致性进行评估。

结果

在480个可能符合条件的网站中,84个被纳入研究。所有网站的平均DISCERN评分为38.5(范围为18 - 64),平均可读性评分为49.4(范围为5.7 - 71.6)。平均弗莱什-金凯德年级水平为10.1(范围为6.6 - 12)。网站上引用的关于耳管信息的关键事实,如插入适应症和并发症,差异很大。

结论

总体而言,关于耳管的互联网信息质量参差不齐,可读性普遍较低。某些主题,如需要重复插入耳管的患者数量以及关于佩戴耳管时洗澡和淋浴的建议,描述得很差。

相似文献

1
The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes.关于耳管主题的互联网信息的质量和准确性。
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013 Jun;77(6):894-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021. Epub 2013 Apr 12.
2
Glue ear: how good is the information on the World Wide Web?胶耳:万维网上的信息质量如何?
J Laryngol Otol. 2016 Feb;130(2):157-61. doi: 10.1017/S0022215115003230.
3
Acute low back pain information online: an evaluation of quality, content accuracy and readability of related websites.在线急性下背痛信息:相关网站的质量、内容准确性及可读性评估
Man Ther. 2012 Aug;17(4):318-24. doi: 10.1016/j.math.2012.02.019. Epub 2012 Mar 30.
4
Quality and Readability of English-Language Internet Information for Tinnitus.耳鸣的英文互联网信息的质量与可读性
J Am Acad Audiol. 2019 Jan;30(1):31-40. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17070. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
5
Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.马尾综合征:评估互联网上患者信息的可读性和质量。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 May 1;39(10):E645-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282.
6
Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites.脊柱相关患者教育资料的易读性:来自专业组织和脊柱医生网站的比较。
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Dec 1;34(25):2826-31. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4bb0c.
7
Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument.使用 DISCERN 工具评估慢性疼痛网站上健康信息的质量和变异性。
BMC Med. 2010 Oct 12;8:59. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-59.
8
Readability and quality assessment of websites related to microtia and aural atresia.与小耳畸形和外耳道闭锁相关网站的可读性和质量评估。
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Feb;79(2):151-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2014.11.027. Epub 2014 Dec 19.
9
Quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others.听力障碍成年人及其重要他人可获取的英文网络信息的质量和可读性。
Int J Audiol. 2012 Aug;51(8):618-26. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.684406. Epub 2012 Jun 26.
10
Readability of consumer health information on the internet: a comparison of U.S. government-funded and commercially funded websites.互联网上消费者健康信息的易读性:美国政府资助和商业资助网站的比较。
J Health Commun. 2012;17(9):1003-10. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2011.650823. Epub 2012 Apr 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Readability, understandability, and quality of online education materials and large language models for retrograde cricopharyngeal muscle dysfunction.用于环咽肌功能障碍的在线教育材料和大语言模型的可读性、可理解性及质量
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Aug 13. doi: 10.1007/s00405-025-09628-x.
2
The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.基于网络的鼻咽癌患者信息的可读性与质量:定量内容分析
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Nov 27;7:e47762. doi: 10.2196/47762.
3
Otosclerosis online: a critical analysis of quality, reliability, readability and content of otosclerosis information.
耳硬化症在线:耳硬化症信息质量、可靠性、可读性和内容的批判性分析。
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Jan;281(1):503-508. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08311-3. Epub 2023 Nov 1.
4
Quality of Online Information on Multiple Myeloma Available for Laypersons.多发性骨髓瘤相关网络信息对非专业人士的适用性评估。
Curr Oncol. 2022 Jun 27;29(7):4522-4540. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29070358.
5
Accuracy and Reliability of Internet Resources for Information on Monoclonal Gammopathy of Undetermined Significance-What Information Is out There for Our Patients?意义未明的单克隆丙种球蛋白病互联网信息资源的准确性和可靠性——我们的患者能获取哪些信息?
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Sep 7;13(18):4508. doi: 10.3390/cancers13184508.
6
Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability.痛经在线信息:可读性、可信度、质量和可用性评估。
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Oct;28(19-20):3590-3598. doi: 10.1111/jocn.14954. Epub 2019 Jun 20.
7
Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet.产科肛门括约肌损伤:对互联网上可得信息的系统评价
Int Urogynecol J. 2019 May;30(5):713-723. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3753-9. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
8
Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.与复发性呼吸道乳头状瘤病相关网站的质量和可读性评估
Laryngoscope. 2017 Oct;127(10):2293-2297. doi: 10.1002/lary.26521. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
9
The Content and Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Patients and Families on Adult Kidney Cancer.互联网上针对成年肾癌患者及其家属的健康信息内容与质量
J Cancer Educ. 2017 Dec;32(4):878-884. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1039-9.
10
Content and quality of information websites about congenital heart defects following a prenatal diagnosis.产前诊断后关于先天性心脏病的信息网站的内容与质量。
Interact J Med Res. 2015 Jan 21;4(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.3819.