PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Most cases of optic neuritis (ON) occur in women and in patients between the ages of 15 and 45 years, which represents a key demographic of individuals who seek health information using the internet. As clinical providers strive to ensure patients have accessible information to understand their condition, assessing the standard of online resources is essential. To assess the quality, content, accountability, and readability of online information for optic neuritis. This cross-sectional study analyzed 11 freely available medical sites with information on optic neuritis and used PubMed as a gold standard for comparison. Twelve questions were composed to include the information most relevant to patients, and each website was independently examined by four neuro-ophthalmologists. Readability was analyzed using an online readability tool. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, four criteria designed to assess the quality of health information further were used to evaluate the accountability of each website. Freely available online information. On average, websites scored 27.98 (SD ± 9.93, 95% CI 24.96-31.00) of 48 potential points (58.3%) for the twelve questions. There were significant differences in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of content across websites (p < .001). The mean reading grade level of websites was 11.90 (SD ± 2.52, 95% CI 8.83-15.25). Zero websites achieved all four JAMA benchmarks. Interobserver reliability was robust between three of four neuro-ophthalmologist (NO) reviewers (ρ = 0.77 between NO3 and NO2, ρ = 0.91 between NO3 and NO1, ρ = 0.74 between NO2 and NO1; all p < .05). The quality of freely available online information detailing optic neuritis varies by source, with significant room for improvement. The material presented is difficult to interpret and exceeds the recommended reading level for health information. Most websites reviewed did not provide comprehensive information regarding non-therapeutic aspects of the disease. Ophthalmology organizations should be encouraged to create content that is more accessible to the general public.
摘要：
大多数视神经炎（ON）发生在女性和15至45岁的患者中，这代表了使用互联网寻求健康信息的个人的关键人口。由于临床提供者努力确保患者有可获得的信息来了解他们的病情，评估在线资源的标准至关重要。为了评估质量，内容,问责制,和视神经炎在线信息的可读性。这项横断面研究分析了11个免费提供的医疗站点，并提供了有关视神经炎的信息，并将PubMed用作比较的金标准。十二个问题包括与患者最相关的信息，每个网站由四名神经眼科医生独立检查。使用在线可读性工具分析可读性。美国医学会杂志（JAMA）基准，4项旨在进一步评估健康信息质量的标准被用于评估每个网站的问责制.免费提供在线信息。平均而言,12个问题的48个潜在点（58.3％）中，网站得分27.98（SD±9.93，95％CI24.96-31.00）。不同网站内容的全面性和准确性存在显著差异(p<.001)。网站的平均阅读等级为11.90（SD±2.52，95％CI8.83-15.25）。零网站实现了所有四个JAMA基准。四位神经眼科医生（NO）评审员中的三位之间的观察者间可靠性是稳健的（NO3和NO2之间的ρ=0.77，NO3和NO1之间的ρ=0.91，NO2和NO1之间的ρ=0.74；所有p<.05）。免费提供的详细介绍视神经炎的在线信息的质量因来源而异，有很大的改进空间。所提供的材料难以解释，并且超出了推荐的健康信息阅读水平。审查的大多数网站没有提供有关该疾病非治疗方面的全面信息。应鼓励眼科组织创建更易于公众访问的内容。
