Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Amr K Hassan; Taher K Eleiwa; Mohamed A Hassan; Ahmed B Sallam; Hossam T Ali; Salah Abdelnaem; Ryan Gise; Paul H Phillips; Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny

doi:10.1097/WNO.0000000000002130

Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

J Neuroophthalmol. 2024 Mar 25. doi: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000002130. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Amr K Hassan¹, Taher K Eleiwa, Mohamed A Hassan, Ahmed B Sallam, Hossam T Ali, Salah Abdelnaem, Ryan Gise, Paul H Phillips, Abdelrahman M Elhusseiny

Affiliation

¹ Department of Ophthalmology (AKH, HTA), Faculty of Medicine, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt; Department of Ophthalmology (TKE), Benha Faculty of Medicine, Benha University, Benha, Egypt; Department of Ophthalmology (MAH, SA), Al Mabaret Al Ma'adi Hospital, Cairo, Egypt; Department of Ophthalmology (ABS, PHP, AME), Harvey and Bernice Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas; and Department of Ophthalmology (RG, AME), Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

PMID: 38527126
DOI: 10.1097/WNO.0000000000002130

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the quality & reliability, technical quality, and readability of patient-targeted online information on idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we searched Google and Bing search engines for the terms "idiopathic intracranial hypertension" and "pseudotumor cerebri." We evaluated the first 50 search outcomes for each search term. Peer-reviewed articles, targeted advertisements, book chapters, videos, personal blogs, websites intended for healthcare professionals, and non-English websites were excluded. Websites were classified as institutional or private. Two independent reviewers assessed each website for 1) quality and reliability using DISCERN, Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode), and JAMA criteria and 2) technical quality based on 11 criteria. Readability was evaluated using 6 measures (Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score and grade level, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (Smog) index, Coleman-Liau index, and automated readability index).

Results: Sixty-three websites (37 institutional) were included. The mean scores for the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria were 3.6 ± 1 (1-4.8; 1: worse, 5: best), 10.3 ± 2.8 (2-16; 0: worse, 16: best), and 2 ± 1.3 (0-4; 0: worse, 4: best), respectively. The mean technical quality score was 0.8 ± 0.1 (0.5-1). The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was 8.9 ± 1.8 (3.3-13.3). For Flesch-Kincaid grade level, 47 (74.6%) websites scored a grade level of 10 or less. For Gunning Fog Score, 35 websites (55.6%) scored from 7.3 to 10.8. For the Smog Index, 46 (73%) websites scored 5.7-8. The mean Coleman Liau Index was 16 ± 2.1 (9.6-22.2). For the automated readability index, 30 (50.7%) websites scored less than the eighth grade. No statistically significant difference was present between institutional and private websites except for JAMA, which scored higher in private websites (2.4 vs 1.7, P = 0.03).

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that online information on idiopathic intracranial hypertension/pseudotumor cerebri for patients generally demonstrates moderate to good quality and reliability. Although most websites maintain credible technical quality, the readability exceeds recommended levels for the average American reader. This may impede understanding, emphasizing the need for future improvements.