Premium
How well informed are our Internet savvy patients on oral premalignant disorders?
Author(s) -
AlcaideRaya A.,
Hughes R.,
Warnakulasuriya S.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
oral surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.156
H-Index - 11
eISSN - 1752-248X
pISSN - 1752-2471
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-248x.2010.01094.x
Subject(s) - the internet , medicine , confusion , consistency (knowledge bases) , quality (philosophy) , set (abstract data type) , information quality , internet privacy , world wide web , information system , computer science , psychology , philosophy , epistemology , artificial intelligence , psychoanalysis , electrical engineering , programming language , engineering
Aim: The explosion in the availability of medical information via the Internet can lead to patients researching their own conditions or even attempting self‐diagnosis. Search engines rank their results using mathematical tools that are not sensitive to the actual quality of the information provided. This article aims at:1 identifying the Internet sites most likely to be viewed on searching for potentially malignant oral disorders; and 2 systematically assessing and scoring the information presented by these web pages. In so doing, support or refute professional concerns as to the desirability of Internet research by patients.Material and methods: Six conditions defined as oral potentially malignant disorders were entered into the five most used UK search engines, and the four top results from each of them were recorded. The analysis of the web sites obtained was performed according to a system set out by the authors, in which the consistency with current literature, the ease of use, the potential for disproportionate alarm, the adequacy of the description of symptoms/signs and the suitability of the advice presented were evaluated. Results: Variable results were noted between each of the search engines. On average, the web sites were considered of acceptable quality, especially for those that referred to the less common conditions. Conclusions: The information was of good quality, and professionals need not be concerned of their patients enhancing their knowledge via the Internet. Confusion was possible, however, with regard to the potential risk status of oral leukoplakia and the possibility of causing disproportionate alarm.