• 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

谷歌医生——评估通过搜索引擎找到的普通外科手术信息的可靠性和可读性。

Dr Google - assessing the reliability and readability of information on general surgical procedures found via search engines.

作者信息

Ramli Raziqah, Jambor Maxwell Andrew, Kong Chia Yew

机构信息

School of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

ANZ J Surg. 2023 Mar;93(3):590-596. doi: 10.1111/ans.18289. Epub 2023 Jan 30.

DOI:10.1111/ans.18289
PMID:36716246
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The most common general surgical emergency operations are laparoscopic appendicectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hernia repair, hemorrhoidectomy and colectomy. Patients commonly perform an internet search for more information prior to undergoing surgery, which can lead to an inappropriate understanding of their procedure. The aim is to assess the quality of information available on three of the most used search engines.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Google.com, Bing.com and Yahoo.com using the terms related to laparoscopic appendicectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, hernia repair and colectomy. First 20 results from each search engine were collected for evaluation. Results were excluded if they were sponsored, duplicates, academic publications, advertisements, forums, audiovisual tools, social media or any non-English information. Included results were assessed for reliability using DISCERN and JAMA benchmark score. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Score and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG).

RESULTS

Hundred and ninety-seven websites were analysed, 44.7% were published by institutions, 34.5% by health websites and 20.8% by independent surgeons. Mean DISCERN scores for Institutions was 54.6 ± 11.3, independent surgeons 45.9 ± 11.4 and health websites 58.7 ± 10.3. Mean JAMA score for Institutions was 1.0 ± 1.0, independent surgeons 0.1 ± 0.4 and health websites 1.7 ± 1.1. FRE scores for institutions was 51.6 ± 10.3, independent surgeons 40.9 ± 10.2, and health websites 45.7 ± 12.3. SMOG scores were 9.8 ± 1.5 for institutions, 11.4 ± 1.6 for independent surgeons and 10.6 ± 1.7 for health websites.

CONCLUSION

Health information on common general surgical procedures found on search engines are generally fair to good quality but still above the suggested reading level of the population. Information on surgical procedures should be written at recommended reading level of 13-14 years old.

摘要

背景

最常见的普通外科急诊手术包括腹腔镜阑尾切除术、腹腔镜胆囊切除术、疝气修补术、痔切除术和结肠切除术。患者通常在手术前会在网上搜索更多信息,这可能导致他们对手术产生不当的理解。目的是评估三个最常用搜索引擎上可用信息的质量。

方法

在谷歌、必应和雅虎上使用与腹腔镜阑尾切除术、腹腔镜胆囊切除术、痔切除术、疝气修补术和结肠切除术相关的术语进行搜索。收集每个搜索引擎的前20个结果进行评估。如果结果是赞助内容、重复内容、学术出版物、广告、论坛、视听工具、社交媒体或任何非英语信息,则将其排除。使用DISCERN和JAMA基准评分对纳入的结果进行可靠性评估。使用弗莱什易读性(FRE)评分和简化的行话度量(SMOG)评估可读性。

结果

分析了197个网站,44.7%由机构发布,34.5%由健康网站发布,20.8%由独立外科医生发布。机构的平均DISCERN评分为54.6±11.3,独立外科医生为45.9±11.4,健康网站为58.7±10.3。机构的平均JAMA评分为1.0±1.0,独立外科医生为0.1±0.4,健康网站为1.7±1.1。机构的FRE评分为51.6±10.3,独立外科医生为40.9±10.2,健康网站为45.7±12.3。机构的SMOG评分为9.8±1.5,独立外科医生为11.4±1.6,健康网站为10.6±1.7。

结论

在搜索引擎上找到的关于普通外科常见手术的健康信息质量总体上尚可,但仍高于建议的大众阅读水平。关于手术程序的信息应以13至14岁的推荐阅读水平编写。

相似文献

1
Dr Google - assessing the reliability and readability of information on general surgical procedures found via search engines.谷歌医生——评估通过搜索引擎找到的普通外科手术信息的可靠性和可读性。
ANZ J Surg. 2023 Mar;93(3):590-596. doi: 10.1111/ans.18289. Epub 2023 Jan 30.
2
Online Patient Information for Hysterectomies: A Systematic Environmental Scan of Quality and Readability.在线子宫切除术患者信息:系统环境扫描质量和可读性。
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022 Aug;44(8):870-876. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2022.03.015. Epub 2022 Apr 26.
3
Functional endoscopic sinus surgery: assessing the readability and quality of online information.功能性内镜鼻窦手术:评估在线信息的可读性和质量。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2023 Sep;105(7):639-644. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2022.0123. Epub 2022 Nov 14.
4
Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) procedure: an assessment of the quality and readability of online information.经颈静脉肝内门体分流术(TIPS)操作:在线信息质量和可读性的评估。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 May 5;21(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12911-021-01513-x.
5
Web-Based Health Information Following the Renewal of the Cervical Screening Program in Australia: Evaluation of Readability, Understandability, and Credibility.澳大利亚宫颈筛查计划更新后的基于网络的健康信息:可读性、可理解性和可信度评估
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e16701. doi: 10.2196/16701.
6
Analysis of the Patient Information Quality and Readability on Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) on the Internet.互联网上食管胃十二指肠镜(EGD)患者信息质量和可读性分析。
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Oct 29;2018:2849390. doi: 10.1155/2018/2849390. eCollection 2018.
7
Quality and Readability of Web-based Arabic Health Information on Denture Hygiene: An Infodemiology Study.基于网络的阿拉伯语假牙卫生健康信息的质量与可读性:一项信息流行病学研究。
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020 Sep 1;21(9):956-960.
8
Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study.基于网络的阿拉伯文龋齿信息的质量和可读性:一项信息流行病学研究。
BMC Oral Health. 2023 Oct 25;23(1):797. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03547-1.
9
All I Have Learned, I Have Learned from Google: Why Today's Facial Rejuvenation Patients are Prone to Misinformation, and the Steps We can take to Contend with Unreliable Information.我所学的一切,皆来自谷歌:为何如今的面部年轻化患者容易被误导,以及我们应对不可靠信息可采取的措施。
Facial Plast Surg. 2019 Aug;35(4):387-392. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1693033. Epub 2019 Aug 14.
10
Readability, reliability and credibility of online patient information on skin grafts.皮肤移植相关在线患者信息的易读性、可靠性和可信度。
Australas J Dermatol. 2023 Feb;64(1):e57-e64. doi: 10.1111/ajd.13953. Epub 2022 Nov 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Search engines and short video apps as sources of information on acute pancreatitis in China: quality assessment and content assessment.中国搜索引擎和短视频应用作为急性胰腺炎信息来源的质量评估与内容评估
Front Public Health. 2025 Jun 4;13:1578076. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1578076. eCollection 2025.
2
The Readability, Understandability, and Suitability of Online Resources for Ostomy Care.造口护理在线资源的易读性、可理解性和适宜性。
J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2024;51(6):471-477. doi: 10.1097/WON.0000000000001125. Epub 2024 Nov 12.