Department of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland.
Department of Surgery, University Hospital Waterford, Waterford, Ireland.
Colorectal Dis. 2019 Mar;21(3):349-356. doi: 10.1111/codi.14497. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
Although the internet is commonly the first port of call for medical information, it provides unregulated data of variable quality. We aimed to evaluate commonly accessed web-based information on intestinal stomas using validated and novel scoring systems.
The keywords 'stoma', 'colostomy', 'ileostomy' and 'bowel bag' were entered into the most commonly used internet search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo). The first ten websites from each search were analysed using the validated Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and DISCERN scoring systems. A novel stoma-specific score was devised and applied.
Forty-three unique websites were identified. The majority (49%) were from nonprofit or governmental agencies and 9% were from commercial entities. The mean total DISCERN score for all websites was 42.4 ± 10.2 (maximum possible score = 75). The mean JAMA and stoma-specific scores were 2.1 ± 1.0 (maximum possible score = 4) and 12.9 ± 6.1 (maximum possible score = 27). The lowest JAMA scores were in the category of attribution, with 70% of websites lacking references for the information provided. A total of 88% displayed disclosure/paid advertiser information. Surgery was described in 67%. An image or diagram was provided in 58% and in 72% a stoma therapist/nurse was mentioned. Information on when to seek medical help was provided in 51%.
Web-based information on stomas is of variable content and quality. Authorship and information sources are often unclear. Only half provided information on when to seek medical help for complications including high output and dehydration. These findings should be highlighted to patients who utilize the internet to obtain information on stomas.
尽管互联网通常是获取医学信息的首选途径，但它提供的是质量参差不齐的无监管数据。我们旨在使用经过验证和新颖的评分系统来评估常用的基于网络的肠造口信息。
在最常用的互联网搜索引擎（谷歌、必应和雅虎）中输入“造口”、“结肠造口术”、“回肠造口术”和“肠造口袋”等关键词。从每个搜索中分析前 10 个网站，使用经过验证的《美国医学会杂志》（JAMA）基准标准和 DISCERN 评分系统。设计并应用了一种新的造口特异性评分。
确定了 43 个独特的网站。其中大部分（49%）来自非营利组织或政府机构，9%来自商业实体。所有网站的平均总 DISCERN 得分为 42.4±10.2（最高得分为 75）。平均 JAMA 和造口特异性得分为 2.1±1.0（最高得分为 4）和 12.9±6.1（最高得分为 27）。JAMA 得分最低的是归因类别，70%的网站未为提供的信息提供参考。共有 88%的网站显示披露/付费广告商信息。67%的网站描述了手术。58%的网站提供了图像或图表，72%的网站提到了造口治疗师/护士。72%的网站提供了何时因并发症（包括高输出和脱水）寻求医疗帮助的信息。这些发现应该向利用互联网获取造口信息的患者强调。
肠造口的网络信息内容和质量参差不齐。作者和信息来源往往不明确。只有一半的网站提供了并发症（包括高输出和脱水）时寻求医疗帮助的信息。这些发现应该向利用互联网获取造口信息的患者强调。
