| Title |
Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Education, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13187-017-1181-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samy A Azer, Maha M Alghofaili, Rana M Alsultan, Najla S Alrumaih |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess the scientific accuracy and the readability level of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. The search engines Google™, Yahoo™ and Bing™ were searched independently by assessors in November 2014 using the following keywords: "bladder cancer", "kidney cancer", "patient bladder cancer", "patient kidney cancer" and "bladder and kidney cancer". Only English-language websites were selected on the bases of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessors independently reviewed the findings and evaluated the accuracy and quality of each website by using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The readability of the websites was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. Sixty-two websites were finally included in the study. The overall accuracy scores varied; for the DISCERN, the range was 28 to 76; out of 80 (mean ± SD, 47.1 ± 12.1; median = 46.0, interquartile range (IQR) = 19.2), and for the LIDA, the range was 52 to 125; out of 144 (mean ± SD, 101.9 ± 15.2; median, 103; IQR, 16.5). The creators of these websites were universities and research centres (n = 25, 40%), foundations and associations (n = 10, 16%), commercial and pharmaceutical companies (n = 13, 21%), charities and volunteer work (n = 4, 6%) and non-university educational bodies (n = 10, 16%). The readability scores (mean ± SD) were 11.2 ± 2.2 for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and 11.2 ± 1.6 for the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. The accuracy and the quality of the websites on kidney and bladder cancers varied. In most websites, there were deficiencies in clarity of aims, presenting symptoms, investigations and treatment options. The readability matched grades 10-11 literacy levels-a level above the public readability level. The study highlights the needs for further improvement of the online information created for public and patients with kidney and bladder cancers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Librarian | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 20 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 20% |
| Psychology | 5 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#18,538,272
of 22,959,818 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#806
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,986
of 307,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,959,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,152 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.