Display options
Cite
Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Kelly ME, et al. Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?. Curr Urol. 2015;8(1):32-7doi: 10.1159/000365686.
Redmond, C. E., Nason, G. J., Kelly, M. E., McMahon, C., Cantwell, C. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (2015). Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?. Current urology, 8(1), 32-7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365686
Redmond, Ciaran E, et al. "Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?." Current urology vol. 8,1 (2015): 32-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000365686
Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Kelly ME, McMahon C, Cantwell CP, Quinlan DM. Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?. Curr Urol. 2015 May;8(1):32-7. doi: 10.1159/000365686. Epub 2015 May 20. PMID: 26195961; PMCID: PMC4483281.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Curr Urol. 2015 May;8(1):32-7. doi: 10.1159/000365686. Epub 2015 May 20.

Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsy of the Prostate: Is the Information Accessible, Usable, Reliable and Readable?.

Current urology

Ciaran E Redmond, Gregory J Nason, Michael E Kelly, Colm McMahon, Colin P Cantwell, David M Quinlan

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
  2. Department of Radiology, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.

PMID: 26195961 PMCID: PMC4483281 DOI: 10.1159/000365686

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of Internet information regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The terms "prostate biopsy", "TRUS biopsy" and "transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate" were separately entered into the each of the top 5 most accessed Internet search engines. Websites were evaluated for accessibility, usability and reliability using the LIDA tool - a validated tool for the assessment of health related websites. Website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level.

RESULTS: Following the application of exclusion criteria, 82 unique websites were analyzed. There was a significant difference in scores depending on authorship categories (p ≤ 0.001), with health related charity websites scoring highest (mean 122.29 ± 13.98) and non-academic affiliated institution websites scoring lowest (mean 87 ± 19.76). The presence of advertisements on a website was associated with a lower mean overall LIDA tool score (p = 0.024). Only a single website adhered to the National Institutes for Health recommendations on readability.

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates variability in the quality of information available to Internet users regarding TRUS biopsies. Collaboration of website design and clinical acumen are necessary to develop appropriate websites for patient benefit.

Keywords: Internet; Prostate biopsy; Quality; Readability

References

  1. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):573-7 - PubMed
  2. Am J Surg. 2011 Feb;201(2):171-8 - PubMed
  3. J Interv Cardiol. 2012 Oct;25(5):476-81 - PubMed
  4. Can Urol Assoc J. 2013 Mar-Apr;7(3-4):100-7 - PubMed
  5. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 Oct 1;37(21):E1364-9 - PubMed
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 27;15(8):e183 - PubMed
  7. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:53-7 - PubMed
  8. Scand J Urol. 2013 Apr;47(2):152-7 - PubMed
  9. Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):410-3 - PubMed
  10. BMC Res Notes. 2010 Jan 28;3:27 - PubMed
  11. BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt B):E765-9 - PubMed
  12. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(2):281-5 - PubMed
  13. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):829-36 - PubMed
  14. Orthopedics. 2009 Sep;32(9): - PubMed
  15. BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107(8):ii-v - PubMed
  16. Urology. 2001 Feb;57(2):230-3 - PubMed
  17. Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):124-37 - PubMed
  18. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013 Jul;95(5):341-4 - PubMed
  19. Eur Urol. 2006 Mar;49(3):415-7 - PubMed
  20. J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6):2171-5 - PubMed
  21. Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Nov;62(604):e732-8 - PubMed
  22. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Dec;35(6):1355-62 - PubMed

Publication Types