Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-31T15:37:12.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quality of information available via the internet for patients with otological conditions

Presenting Author: Alistair Mitchell-Innes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2016

Alistair Mitchell-Innes ,
Alistair Mitchell-Innes ,
Julian Danino ,
Jameel Muzaffar ,
James Howard  and
Chris Coulson
Alistair Mitchell-Innes
Affiliation:
University Hospital Birmingham Foundation NHS Trust
Alistair Mitchell-Innes
Affiliation:
University Hospital Birmingham
Julian Danino
Affiliation:
New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton
Jameel Muzaffar
Affiliation:
Worcester Royal Hospital
James Howard
Affiliation:
University Hospital Birmingham
Chris Coulson
Affiliation:
University Hospital Birmingham
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Learning Objectives:

Objective: Evaluate the type, content and quality of information available via the internet for patients with common otological conditions.

Methods: The Google search engine was used to generate responses for the following search terms: glue ear, otitis media, otosclerosis, Meniere's disease, cholesteatoma and ear perforation. The first 10 websites for each search term were selected for analysis. Websites were evaluated with the validated DISCERN instrument, the LIDA tool, the Flesch Readability Formula, the SMOG (Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) readability score and against the JAMA criteria. Comparisons were made with a similar study assessing quality of information in non-otological conditions.

Results: Mean SMOG score was 12.19 years of education (range 6.2–22.8). The HON symbol appeared on 15 of 49 websites (30.61%). Pearson's r was used to identify interactions between variables and demonstrated a significant correlation between LIDA score and Google ranking (R2 = −0.1195, p = 0.002); between university/hospital affiliation and JAMA score (R2 = −1.7889, p = 0.0182) and commercial affiliation and JAMA score (R2 = 1.0561; p = 0.01). Multivariate linear regression analysis showed LIDA to be the strongest predictor of Google ranking (Page rank decreasing by 0.10572 per LIDA score; p = 0.01).

Conclusion: As websites with better Google ranking were only weakly associated with higher quality rankings patients would benefit from being directed to reliable websites by clinicians. There is currently a gap in the available resources repository of otological information aimed at patients.