• 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

关于梨状肌综合征的在线信息的质量和可读性。

Quality and readability of online information about piriformis syndrome.

机构信息

Prof Dr Cemil Tascioglu City Hospital, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic, Istanbul Turkey.

Istanbul Training and Research Hospital, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic, Istanbul Turkey.

出版信息

J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2024 Oct;40:2205-2210. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.11.009. Epub 2024 Nov 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.11.009
PMID:39593585
Abstract

AIM

In this study, we aimed to investigate the quality and readability of websites related to Piriformis Syndrome(PS).

METHOD

On November 14, 2023, we searched the term "Piriformis Syndrome" in Google (https://www.google.com). We evaluated the top 200 uniform resource locators(URLs) in query results for typology, Journal of the American Medical Association(JAMA) scores, the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease(FRE) score, Flesch-Kincaid grade(FKG) level, Gunning-Fog index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook(SMOG) grade level. The JAMA scoring system was used to assess quality, and FRE, FKG, Gunning-Fog index and SMOG scores were used to assess the readability of online information. Content analysis was performed for etiology, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Treatment options were evaluated as exercise, physical therapy agents, drug therapy, invasive treatments, and surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 138 websites evaluated, 39 were classified as high-quality websites. Scientific publications and health portal websites were found to have high-quality scores. When the readability parameters of the websites were compared in terms of quality, there was no significant difference between high-quality websites and low-quality websites in terms of FRE and FKG scores(p > 0.05), but there was a significant difference in Gunning-Fog index and SMOG scores(p = 0.030, p = 0.010 respectively). The quality score of the top 10 websites was higher than the rest(p = 0.002). When the contents of the websites were analyzed, there was a significant difference only in terms of diagnosis. Scientific websites mentioned diagnosis the most, while commercial websites mentioned it the least. When the treatment content was analyzed, there was a significant difference in terms of surgery. Non-profit websites mentioned it the most, while commercial websites mentioned it the least.

CONCLUSION

High-quality websites were slightly more difficult in the readability parameters. However, the proportion of high-quality websites was quite low. These results may encourage those producing PS-related online information to improve the quality and readability of content and content coverage.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在调查与梨状肌综合征(PS)相关的网站的质量和可读性。

方法

2023 年 11 月 14 日,我们在 Google(https://www.google.com)中搜索了“梨状肌综合征”一词。我们评估了查询结果中前 200 个统一资源定位符(URL)的类型、美国医学会杂志(JAMA)评分、弗莱什-金凯德阅读舒适度(FRE)评分、弗莱什-金凯德等级(FKG)水平、古宁-福格指数和简易文字难度测量(SMOG)等级。JAMA 评分系统用于评估质量,FRE、FKG、古宁-福格指数和 SMOG 评分用于评估在线信息的可读性。对病因、症状、诊断和治疗进行了内容分析。治疗选择评估为运动、物理治疗剂、药物治疗、侵入性治疗和手术。

结果

在评估的 138 个网站中,有 39 个被归类为高质量网站。科学出版物和健康门户网站的评分较高。当根据质量比较网站的可读性参数时,高质量网站和低质量网站在 FRE 和 FKG 评分方面没有显著差异(p>0.05),但在古宁-福格指数和 SMOG 评分方面有显著差异(p=0.030,p=0.010)。前 10 名网站的质量评分高于其他网站(p=0.002)。当分析网站的内容时,只有在诊断方面存在显著差异。科学网站提到诊断最多,而商业网站提到诊断最少。当分析治疗内容时,在手术方面存在显著差异。非营利性网站提到手术最多,而商业网站提到手术最少。

结论

高质量网站的可读性参数略有难度。然而,高质量网站的比例相当低。这些结果可能鼓励那些制作与 PS 相关的在线信息的人提高内容和内容覆盖的质量和可读性。

相似文献

1
Quality and readability of online information about piriformis syndrome.关于梨状肌综合征的在线信息的质量和可读性。
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2024 Oct;40:2205-2210. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.11.009. Epub 2024 Nov 5.
2
Evaluating the reliability and readability of online information on osteoporosis.评估骨质疏松症在线信息的可靠性和可读性。
Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2021 Nov 1;65(1):85-92. doi: 10.20945/2359-3997000000311. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
3
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.
4
Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.特发性颅内高压在线信息的质量、可靠性和可读性
J Neuroophthalmol. 2025 Mar 1;45(1):17-22. doi: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000002130. Epub 2024 Mar 25.
5
Readability and quality of online information for patients pertaining to revision knee arthroplasty: An objective analysis.与膝关节翻修置换术相关的患者在线信息的可读性及质量:一项客观分析。
Surgeon. 2022 Dec;20(6):e366-e370. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2021.12.009. Epub 2022 Jan 14.
6
Assessing parental comprehension of online resources on childhood pain.评估父母对儿童疼痛在线资源的理解程度。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 21;103(25):e38569. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038569.
7
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.主要眼科协会在线患者教育材料评估。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
8
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.
9
Quality and readability of online information on hand osteoarthritis.手部骨关节炎在线信息的质量和可读性。
Health Informatics J. 2023 Jan-Mar;29(1):14604582231169297. doi: 10.1177/14604582231169297.
10
Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis.强直性脊柱炎相关网络信息的质量和可读性。
Clin Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;38(11):3269-3274. doi: 10.1007/s10067-019-04706-y. Epub 2019 Aug 1.