| Title |
Evaluation of the content quality of websites for recurrent aphthous ulcers and oral lichen planus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Oral Health, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12903-017-0467-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiaosheng Hu, Hui Pan, Wenxiu He, Hong Hua, Zhimin Yan |
| Abstract |
The Internet is one of the most popular resources for people to obtain medical information; however, only a limited number of studies have reported the quality of the available health information related to oral mucosal diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the quality of information on websites for recurrent aphthous ulcers (RAU) and oral lichen planus (OLP), in both Chinese and English. Common search engines, BaiDu, Google, and Yahoo in Chinese; and Bing, Google, and Yahoo in English were used to identify websites providing content related to the oral mucosal diseases. The first 100 links for keywords "recurrent aphthous ulcers" and "oral lichen planus" were visited and content was downloaded within 24 h. Two separate trained researchers use the validated DISCERN rating instrument and JAMA benchmarks to evaluate the content. The rating scores were analyzed and the quality was assessed according to the scores and content of websites. A total of 145 websites for RAU and 128 of OLP were analyzed. Based on the DISCERN instrument, the quality of the content in websites for both diseases, whether in English or Chinese, was not high, generally scoring 2 to 3 (max. 5). Only 13 of the RAU websites and 21 of the OLP websites fulfilled the four criteria of the JAMA benchmarks. Generally, the scores of the English websites were higher than those of the Chinese websites. During the twelve searches, only four (Yahoo of RAU in Chinese, Bing and Yahoo of RAU in English, and Google of OLP in Chinese) showed moderate correlation between the website's ranking and their rating scores. People cannot obtain high quality medical information if they only look at the top ranked sites on the viewing lists. Websites belonging to universities or medical centers had relatively higher scores compared with the others. The quality of the content on websites relating to RAU and OLP in Chinese and English was moderate. More good quality websites and information are needed in the future. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 20% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 16 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,963,216
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#685
of 1,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,380
of 441,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 441,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.