PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Background/Aims
Internet has become an important source of medical information not only for doctors but also patients. However, information available in the Internet may provide wrong or even harmful knowledge to the public. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of Internet-based medical information about Barrett's esophagus in Korea.
Methods
The first 50 Internet links were retrieved from the Google using the key word ‘Barrett's esophagus’. The quality of information from a total of 49 websites was evaluated using a checklist.
Results
Among total 49 sites related to ‘Barrett's esophagus’, only 4 sites (8.2%) were made by hospitals or clinics, and 11 sites (22.4%) were for patients. Of the 49 sites, only one web site (2.0%) had all HON CODE principles (authority, complementarity, confidentiality, attribution, justifiability, transparency of authorship, transparency of sponsorship, honesty in advertising and editorial policy). Sixteen Internet links (32.0%) had fair contents for the definition, and 24 links (48.0%) for the diagnosis, and 15 links (30.0%) for the treatment.
Conclusions
Information about Barrett's esophagus was incomplete in the majority of medical web sites. It will bring about confusion in patients who want to get information about Barrett's esophagus from the Internet. There is a need for better evidence-based information about Barrett's esophagus on the web.
REFERENCES
1. O'Connor JB, Johanson JF. Use of the web for medical information by a gastroenterology clinic population. JAMA. 2000; 284:1962–1964.
2. Peroutka SJ. Analysis of internet sites for headache. Cepha-lalgia. 2001; 21:20–24.
3. Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998; 52(Pt 2):1163–1166.
4. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor–let the reader and view-er beware. JAMA. 1997; 277:1244–1245.
5. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigating to knowledge or to babel? JAMA. 1998; 279:611–614.
6. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and read-ability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285:2612–2621.
7. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002; 287:2691–2700.
8. Shin HJ, Yun SM, Oh SY, Oh JG. The analysis of the present status of the medical internet sites in Korea. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2000; 21:792–800.
9. Chang MC, Kim CD, Roh HR, Chae GB, Choi WJ. Analysis of surgical websites in Korea. J Korean Surg Soc. 2003; 64:1–5.
10. Kim JH, Rhee PL, Lee JH, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of Barrett's esophagus in Korea. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 22:908–912.
11. Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97:1888–1895.
12. Ambre J, Guard R, Perveiler FM, Renner J, Rippen H. Criteria for assessing the quality of health information on the internet, 1999. Available at:. http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/docs/criteria.html.AccessedAugust112008.
13. Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2002; 47:273–275.
14. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, et al. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002; 324:577–581.
15. Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000; 321:1511–1515.
16. Fraquelli M, Conte D, Camma C, et al. Quality-related variables at hepatological websites. Dig Liver Dis. 2004; 36:533–538.
17. Sandvik H. Health information and interaction on the internet: a survey of female urinary incontinence. BMJ. 1999; 319:29–32.
18. Burneo JG. An evaluation of the quality of epilepsy education on the Canadian World Wide Web. Epilepsy Behav. 2006; 8:299–302.
19. Jaffery JB, Becker BN. Evaluation of eHealth web sites for patients with chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004; 44:71–76.
20. Chun BC. E-health and internet in medicine - a strategic perspective. J Korean Med Assoc. 2002; 45:4–16.
21. Minol K, Spelsberg G, Schulte E, Morris N. Portals, blogs and co.: the role of the internet as a medium of science communication. Biotechnol J. 2007; 2:1129–1140.
22. Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103:788–797.
23. Singh R, Ragunath K, Jankowski J. Barrett's esophagus: diagnosis, screening, surveillance, and controversies. Gut Liver. 2007; 1:93–100.
Table 1.
Evaluated Characteristics of 49 Websites
Table 2.
Medical Facts Contained in Websites about Barrett's Esophagus (n=50)
XML Download