Open AccessHow Good Is Google? The Quality of Otolaryngology Information on the Internet
Author(s) -
Pusz Max Daniel,
Brietzke Scott E.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599811416318a44
Subject(s) - otorhinolaryngology , medicine , obstructive sleep apnea , the internet , quality (philosophy) , quality score , surgery , world wide web , computer science , metric (unit) , philosophy , operations management , epistemology , economics
Objective Despite any cautionary warnings from medical providers, searching internet websites is likely to be a patient’s (or parent’s) first step in obtaining timely information on the treatment of common otolaryngology problems. The quality of the information a patient (parent) may encounter using a Google search for typical otolaryngology ailments was critically examined. Method A Google keyword search was performed for 10 common otolaryngology problems including ear infection, hearing loss, tonsillitis, etc. The top 10 search results for each were critically examined using the 16 item (1‐5 scale) standardized DISCERN instrument. The DISCERN instrument was developed to assess the quality of patient treatment choice literature. Results A total of 100 websites were assessed. Nineteen (19%) were primarily advertisements for products and were excluded from DISCERN scoring. Searches for more typically chronic otolaryngic problems (eg, tinnitus, sleep apnea) resulted in more biased, advertisement results than typically acute problems (eg, ear infection, sinus infection, P =. 03). The search for “sleep apnea treatment” produced the highest scoring results (mean overall DISCERN score, 3.49; range, 1.81‐4.56), and the search for “hoarseness treatment” produced the lowest scores (mean, 2.49; range, 1.56‐3.56). Results from major comprehensive websites (WebMD, EMedicinehealth.com , Wikipedia, etc) scored higher than other websites (Mean DISCERN score, 3.46; vs 2.48; P <. 001). Conclusion There is marked variability in the quality of website information for the treatment of common otolaryngologic problems. Searches on more chronic problems resulted in a higher proportion of biased advertisement websites. Larger, comprehensive websites generally provided better information but were less than perfect in presenting complete information on treatment options.