REGULAR CONTENT
Final ID
434
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Martin1, J Martin1
Institutions
1University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to objectively evaluate the presence of IR resources online, and measure the quality and depth of information available to physicians, medical students and patients about the field and its procedures.
Materials & Methods
Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each website using the DISCERN instrument. The three most popular search engines from the Nielsen/NetRatings were used for this investigation: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Websites were stratified into organizational (from official national radiology organizations) websites vs. non-organizational websites. The number of websites describing the procedure, describing the indications, what to expect, and videos or pictures of the procedure were also documented for a number of procedures.
Results
A total of 120 websites were reviewed, comprising 40 for each of the three search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). Removal of 44 duplicate websites and 35 ineligible websites left a total of 41 unique sites. The inter-rater reliability between reviewers was excellent with κ = 0.890 (SE = 0.017, 95% CI = 0.856-0.925). The overall mean DISCERN score was 40.03 (SD = 13.01) from a possible maximum score of 80. A two-tailed t-test showed a significantly higher DISCERN score for organizational websites, compared to non-organizational websites (62.00 vs. 37.58, p = 0.0001). Patient instructions on what to expect were most available for UAE (12 websites). Videos of a particular procedure were rare, with angioplasty and stent placement having one video each.
Conclusions
Quality of websites for IR procedures is of low to moderate quality. The best websites for tended to be concise, interactive, and clearly targeted toward patients or clinicians, providing relevant information about the nature of procedures and benefits/risks associated with it. DISCERN scores were compromised by a lack of clear sources, clear dates of sources, and discussing the consequences of providing no treatment. To educate patients and help them make informed choices, the quality of resources available must certainly be improved.
Final ID
434
Type
Original Scientific Research-Oral or Pos
Authors
J Martin1, J Martin1
Institutions
1University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to objectively evaluate the presence of IR resources online, and measure the quality and depth of information available to physicians, medical students and patients about the field and its procedures.
Materials & Methods
Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of each website using the DISCERN instrument. The three most popular search engines from the Nielsen/NetRatings were used for this investigation: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. Websites were stratified into organizational (from official national radiology organizations) websites vs. non-organizational websites. The number of websites describing the procedure, describing the indications, what to expect, and videos or pictures of the procedure were also documented for a number of procedures.
Results
A total of 120 websites were reviewed, comprising 40 for each of the three search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). Removal of 44 duplicate websites and 35 ineligible websites left a total of 41 unique sites. The inter-rater reliability between reviewers was excellent with κ = 0.890 (SE = 0.017, 95% CI = 0.856-0.925). The overall mean DISCERN score was 40.03 (SD = 13.01) from a possible maximum score of 80. A two-tailed t-test showed a significantly higher DISCERN score for organizational websites, compared to non-organizational websites (62.00 vs. 37.58, p = 0.0001). Patient instructions on what to expect were most available for UAE (12 websites). Videos of a particular procedure were rare, with angioplasty and stent placement having one video each.
Conclusions
Quality of websites for IR procedures is of low to moderate quality. The best websites for tended to be concise, interactive, and clearly targeted toward patients or clinicians, providing relevant information about the nature of procedures and benefits/risks associated with it. DISCERN scores were compromised by a lack of clear sources, clear dates of sources, and discussing the consequences of providing no treatment. To educate patients and help them make informed choices, the quality of resources available must certainly be improved.