J Oral Facial Pain Headache. 2017;31(2):147-151. doi: 10.11607/ofph.1717.
To evaluate the quality and readability of online information about the treatment of burning mouth syndrome (BMS).
An internet search using the phrase "burning mouth syndrome treatment" was carried out on the Google search engine (www.google.co.uk) on 8 June 2015, and the first 100 websites listed were examined. Data collection included DISCERN score, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks for website analysis score, the presence of the Health on the Net (HON) Foundation seal, and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). Descriptive statistics were performed using Microsoft Office Excel.
The search strategy initially yielded 635,000 links; following the application of the exclusion criteria, 53 sites remained for analysis. The overall DISCERN score varied between websites, with half of all websites achieving an overall score of 2 and none of these websites achieving the maximum score of 5. The mean score ± standard deviation (SD) was 2.4 ± 0.7. Only 10 (18.9%) of the websites achieved the four JAMA benchmarks while 3 (5.7%) of the websites did not achieve any of them. Only 9 (17%) displayed the HON seal. The FRES of the websites ranged from 32.4 to 82.2; the mean ± SD rating was 55.4 ± 10.7, which is considered to reflect fairly difficult reading.
The information available online about BMS is of questionable quality and content. Perhaps engaging patients in determining what type and format of information they desire when searching online for health information could guide clinicians and researchers alike in providing reliable and readable information sources.
评估关于治疗灼口综合征（BMS）的在线信息的质量和可读性。
于 2015 年 6 月 8 日在 Google 搜索引擎（www.google.co.uk）上使用短语“burning mouth syndrome treatment”进行互联网搜索，并检查列出的前 100 个网站。数据收集包括 DISCERN 评分、《美国医学会杂志》（JAMA）网站分析评分标准、健康网络基金会（HON）印章的存在以及弗莱什阅读舒适度评分（FRES）。使用 Microsoft Office Excel 进行描述性统计。
搜索策略最初产生了 635000 个链接；应用排除标准后，有 53 个网站可供分析。网站之间的整体 DISCERN 评分存在差异，其中一半的网站总分为 2 分，没有一个网站达到 5 分的最高分。平均得分±标准偏差（SD）为 2.4±0.7。只有 10 个（18.9%）网站达到了 JAMA 的四个标准，而 3 个（5.7%）网站没有达到任何标准。只有 9 个（17%）网站显示了 HON 印章。网站的 FRES 范围为 32.4 至 82.2；平均±SD 评分为 55.4±10.7，这被认为反映了相当困难的阅读。
在线提供的有关 BMS 的信息质量和内容值得怀疑。也许让患者参与确定他们在在线搜索健康信息时希望获得哪种类型和格式的信息，可以指导临床医生和研究人员提供可靠和可读的信息来源。
