- Email: [email protected]
Comment on: Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy
544
R. Corcelles et al. / Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 11 (2015) 539–545
[11] Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105–11. [12] Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011;169:53–7. [13] Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2618–24. [14] Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Gebhart A, Hohmann S. Changes in the makeup of bariatric surgery: a national increase in use of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216:252–7. [15] O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability & quality of patient information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Epub 2014 May 1. [16] Grewal P, Alagaratnam S. The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg 2013;11:410–3. [17] Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, McCarthy T. Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior
[18]
[19] [20]
[21]
[22] [23] [24]
cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1095–100. Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L, et al. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web. Clin Transplant 2007;21:371–6. Fraquelli M, Conte D, Camma C, et al. Quality-related variables at hepatological websites. Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:533–8. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Zullino D, Khan R. HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatr Q 2012;83:15–27. Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e40. Saperstein SL, Atkinson NL, Gold RS. The impact of internet use for weight loss. Obes Rev 2007;8:459–65. Makar B, Quilliot D, Zarnegar R, et al. What is the quality of information about bariatric surgery on the internet? Obes Surg 2008;18:1455–9. Tavare AN, Alsafi A, Hamady MS. Analysis of the quality of information obtained about uterine artery embolization from the internet. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012;35:1355–62.
Editorial comment
Comment on: Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy “Don’t believe everything you read.” It is an old warning that is especially true for health-related information on the World Wide Web. According to the Pew Research Internet Project Health Fact Sheet, 87% of U.S. adults use the Internet and 58% own a smartphone [1]. Based on a 2012 survey, 72% of Internet users say they looked online for health information within the past year. A recently published Google Trend analysis demonstrated that spikes in search numbers show an association with events such as changing policy and insurance guidelines and media coverage for bariatric procedures, implying that interest in bariatric surgery is reflected by internet activity [2]. As the public takes to the Internet for their health information, relatively little attention has been paid to the quality of the information that they encounter. This study conducted by Corcelles et al. [3] shines a light on the poor quality of information available on the Internet with regard to sleeve gastrectomy. This is an important topic. As medical professionals, we trust that the medical information we read in our journals has been vetted appropriately through the peer-review process. We are savvy consumers of medical information, capable of objectively evaluating the merits and shortcomings of the medical information we read. The public, our patients, for the most part lack the years of training and experience to discern the marketing
and hype (often most likely to rise to the top of a Google search) from the unbiased medical information they seek. The highlighted issues with regard to the quality of health information related to surgery on the Internet are not limited to sleeve gastrectomy. A recent systematic analysis of 400 randomly selected U.S. hospital websites describing robotic surgery revealed that materials provided by hospitals regarding the surgical robot overestimate benefits, largely ignore risks and are strongly influenced by the manufacturer [4]. Similar issues have been reported in websites discussing topics ranging from knee arthroscopy [5], to kidney transplantation [6], and to breast cancer [7] among many others. I am of the opinion that this topic is important enough that the bariatric surgery accreditation process (review by Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program or similar entity) should include a review of the individual program’s bariatric website for potentially false or misleading claims. Patient/provider partnerships lead to the best medical decisions. The current reality is that most patients have done some research on their own before we, as surgeons, ever meet them. The modern patient is better informed (or better misinformed) than ever. As physicians, we have an ethical obligation to be the source of objective truth for our patients. This starts with the information we put out to the world on our Internet sites and marketing materials.
Quality of Internet Information for Sleeve Gastrectomy / Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 11 (2015) 539–545
Jon C. Gould, M.D., FACS Department of Surgery Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI
References [1] Pew Research Internet Project. Health fact sheet. September 25, 2014; http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/. [2] Linkov F, Bovbjerg DH, Freese KE, Ramanathan R, Eid GM, Gourash W. Bariatric surgery interest around the world: what Google Trends can teach us. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014;10:533–9.
545
[3] Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR. Assessment of the Quality of Internet Information on Sleeve Gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015;11(3):539–44. [4] Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Health Qual 2011;33:48–52. [5] Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, McCarthy T. Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the Internet. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1095–100. [6] Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L, et al. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web. Clin Transplant 2007;21:371–6. [7] 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;324:577–81.
R. Corcelles et al. / Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 11 (2015) 539–545
[11] Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105–11. [12] Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011;169:53–7. [13] Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2618–24. [14] Nguyen NT, Nguyen B, Gebhart A, Hohmann S. Changes in the makeup of bariatric surgery: a national increase in use of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216:252–7. [15] O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C, et al. Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability & quality of patient information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Epub 2014 May 1. [16] Grewal P, Alagaratnam S. The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg 2013;11:410–3. [17] Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, McCarthy T. Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior
[18]
[19] [20]
[21]
[22] [23] [24]
cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1095–100. Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L, et al. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web. Clin Transplant 2007;21:371–6. Fraquelli M, Conte D, Camma C, et al. Quality-related variables at hepatological websites. Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:533–8. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Zullino D, Khan R. HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatr Q 2012;83:15–27. Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2014;16:e40. Saperstein SL, Atkinson NL, Gold RS. The impact of internet use for weight loss. Obes Rev 2007;8:459–65. Makar B, Quilliot D, Zarnegar R, et al. What is the quality of information about bariatric surgery on the internet? Obes Surg 2008;18:1455–9. Tavare AN, Alsafi A, Hamady MS. Analysis of the quality of information obtained about uterine artery embolization from the internet. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012;35:1355–62.
Editorial comment
Comment on: Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy “Don’t believe everything you read.” It is an old warning that is especially true for health-related information on the World Wide Web. According to the Pew Research Internet Project Health Fact Sheet, 87% of U.S. adults use the Internet and 58% own a smartphone [1]. Based on a 2012 survey, 72% of Internet users say they looked online for health information within the past year. A recently published Google Trend analysis demonstrated that spikes in search numbers show an association with events such as changing policy and insurance guidelines and media coverage for bariatric procedures, implying that interest in bariatric surgery is reflected by internet activity [2]. As the public takes to the Internet for their health information, relatively little attention has been paid to the quality of the information that they encounter. This study conducted by Corcelles et al. [3] shines a light on the poor quality of information available on the Internet with regard to sleeve gastrectomy. This is an important topic. As medical professionals, we trust that the medical information we read in our journals has been vetted appropriately through the peer-review process. We are savvy consumers of medical information, capable of objectively evaluating the merits and shortcomings of the medical information we read. The public, our patients, for the most part lack the years of training and experience to discern the marketing
and hype (often most likely to rise to the top of a Google search) from the unbiased medical information they seek. The highlighted issues with regard to the quality of health information related to surgery on the Internet are not limited to sleeve gastrectomy. A recent systematic analysis of 400 randomly selected U.S. hospital websites describing robotic surgery revealed that materials provided by hospitals regarding the surgical robot overestimate benefits, largely ignore risks and are strongly influenced by the manufacturer [4]. Similar issues have been reported in websites discussing topics ranging from knee arthroscopy [5], to kidney transplantation [6], and to breast cancer [7] among many others. I am of the opinion that this topic is important enough that the bariatric surgery accreditation process (review by Metabolic and Bariatric Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program or similar entity) should include a review of the individual program’s bariatric website for potentially false or misleading claims. Patient/provider partnerships lead to the best medical decisions. The current reality is that most patients have done some research on their own before we, as surgeons, ever meet them. The modern patient is better informed (or better misinformed) than ever. As physicians, we have an ethical obligation to be the source of objective truth for our patients. This starts with the information we put out to the world on our Internet sites and marketing materials.
Quality of Internet Information for Sleeve Gastrectomy / Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases 11 (2015) 539–545
Jon C. Gould, M.D., FACS Department of Surgery Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI
References [1] Pew Research Internet Project. Health fact sheet. September 25, 2014; http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/. [2] Linkov F, Bovbjerg DH, Freese KE, Ramanathan R, Eid GM, Gourash W. Bariatric surgery interest around the world: what Google Trends can teach us. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2014;10:533–9.
545
[3] Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR. Assessment of the Quality of Internet Information on Sleeve Gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015;11(3):539–44. [4] Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA. Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Health Qual 2011;33:48–52. [5] Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, McCarthy T. Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the Internet. Arthroscopy 2013;29:1095–100. [6] Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L, et al. The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web. Clin Transplant 2007;21:371–6. [7] 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;324:577–81.