Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; and.
Department of Ophthalmology, Hamilton Eye Institute-University of Tennessee, Memphis, TN.
Cornea. 2022 Aug 1;41(8):1023-1028. doi: 10.1097/ICO.0000000000003034. Epub 2022 Mar 24.
The purpose of this study was to assess the quality, reliability, readability, and technical quality of web sites relating to dry eye disease.
A cross-sectional study was conducted that evaluated the first 75 web sites on a Google Search by using the keyword "dry eyes." Each web site was evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria to assess quality and reliability. Interrater reliability was also analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid readability tests and the Gunning fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau, and automated readability indices. Technical quality was determined by the presence of 10 specific features. Web sites were further categorized into institutional (academic centers, medical associations, and government institutions) and private (private practices) categories.
There was no significant difference in scoring observed between the 2 reviewers. The overall mean DISCERN score ± standard error (SE) was 3.2 ± 0.1, the mean HONcode score (±SE) was 9.3 ± 0.3, and the mean JAMA score (±SE) was 1.9 ± 0.1. Institutional web sites had a higher DISCERN score (3.4 ± 0.1 vs. 3.1 ± 0.1; P < 0.05) and HONcode score (10.3 ± 0.5 vs. 8.8 ± 0.4; P < 0.05) than private sites. Technical quality was higher in institutional web sites compared with private web sites ( P < 0.05). Readability was poor among all web sites, with most web sites not achieving below a ninth grade reading level.
Quality, reliability, and readability scores were low for most web sites. Although institutional web sites achieved higher scores than private web sites, revision is warranted to improve their overall quality of information and readability profile.
本研究旨在评估干眼症相关网站的质量、可靠性、可读性和技术质量。
通过在 Google 搜索中输入关键字“干眼症”，进行了一项横断面研究，评估了前 75 个网站。每个网站都由 2 位独立的评审员使用 DISCERN、HONcode 和 JAMA 标准进行评估，以评估质量和可靠性。还分析了组内信度。使用 Flesch-Kincaid 可读性测试和 Gunning fog、Simple Measure of Gobbledygook、Coleman-Liau 和自动可读性指数评估可读性。通过 10 个特定特征的存在来确定技术质量。网站进一步分为机构（学术中心、医学协会和政府机构）和私人（私人诊所）类别。
两位评审员的评分无显著差异。DISCERN 总平均分±标准误差（SE）为 3.2±0.1，HONcode 平均分（±SE）为 9.3±0.3，JAMA 平均分（±SE）为 1.9±0.1。机构网站的 DISCERN 评分（3.4±0.1 与 3.1±0.1；P<0.05）和 HONcode 评分（10.3±0.5 与 8.8±0.4；P<0.05）均高于私人网站。与私人网站相比，机构网站的技术质量更高（P<0.05）。所有网站的可读性均较差，大多数网站未达到 9 年级以下的阅读水平。
大多数网站的质量、可靠性和可读性评分较低。尽管机构网站的评分高于私人网站，但需要进行修订以提高其整体信息质量和可读性。
