'Prostate Cancer' Information on the Internet: Fact or Fiction?
DISCERN score
Health on the Net seal
Internet information quality
JAMA Benchmarks
Prostate cancer
Journal
Current urology
ISSN: 1661-7649
Titre abrégé: Curr Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101471188
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
13
12
2018
accepted:
14
02
2019
entrez:
31
1
2020
pubmed:
31
1
2020
medline:
31
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'. Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net. 33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%). Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS
OBJECTIVE
In today's information era, patients often seek information regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'.
METHODS
METHODS
Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017). Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN score, Health on the Net.
RESULTS
RESULTS
33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)] were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included: commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%); non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%); stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks (34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated: 'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) = 68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31998052
doi: 10.1159/000499271
pii: cur-0013-0200
pmc: PMC6977000
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
200-208Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Australas Med J. 2014 Jan 31;7(1):24-8
pubmed: 24567763
J Urol. 2006 May;175(5):1836-42; discussion 1842
pubmed: 16600774
JAMA. 2001 May 23-30;285(20):2612-21
pubmed: 11368735
Urology. 2001 Feb;57(2):230-3
pubmed: 11182326
BMJ. 2004 Mar 6;328(7439):564
pubmed: 15001506
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Oct;63(1-2):24-8
pubmed: 16406474
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11
pubmed: 10396471
Support Care Cancer. 2008 Oct;16(10):1189-95
pubmed: 18293014
Int J Cancer. 2015 Mar 1;136(5):E359-86
pubmed: 25220842
Health Aff (Millwood). 2000 Jan-Feb;19(1):148-56
pubmed: 10645081
Comput Inform Nurs. 2011 Jul;29(7):388-95
pubmed: 20975535
J Cancer Educ. 2017 Mar;32(1):135-140
pubmed: 26234650
JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244-5
pubmed: 9103351
Support Care Cancer. 2012 Dec;20(12):3087-94
pubmed: 22415609
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(5):367-74
pubmed: 17853004
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jan;94(1):10-9
pubmed: 24021418
Am J Mens Health. 2008 Jun;2(2):106-21
pubmed: 19477775
Patient Educ Couns. 2004 Apr;53(1):57-64
pubmed: 15062905
J Urol. 2014 May;191(5):1265-71
pubmed: 24333514
World J Urol. 2018 Apr;36(4):565-573
pubmed: 29222595
J Evid Based Med. 2013 Aug;6(3):167-72
pubmed: 24325373
Urology. 2010 Mar;75(3):619-22
pubmed: 19815255