| Title |
Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2179-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Mozafarpour, Briony Norris, James Borin, Brian H. Eisner |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the quality and readability of online information on ureteral stents. Google.com was queried using the search terms "ureteric stent", "ureteral stent", "double J stent" and, "Kidney stent" derived from Google AdWords. Website popularity was determined using Google Rank and the Alexa tool. Website quality assessment was performed using the following criteria: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, Health on the Net (HON) criteria, and a customized DISCERN questionnaire. The customized DISCERN questionnaire was developed by combining the short validated DISCERN questionnaire with additional stent-specific items including definition, placement, complications, limitations, removal and "when to seek help". Scores related to stent items were considered as the "stent score" (SS). Readability was evaluated using five readability tests. Thirty-two websites were included. The mean customized DISCERN score and "stent score" were 27.1 ± 7.1 (maximum possible score = 59) and 14.6 ± 3.8 (maximum possible score = 24), respectively. A minority of websites adequately addressed "stent removal" and "when to seek medical attention". Only two websites (6.3%) had HON certification (drugs.com, radiologyinfo.org) and only one website (3.3%) met all JAMA criteria (bradyurology.blogspot.com). Readability level was higher than the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth-grade level for more than 75% of the websites. There was no correlation between Google rank, Alexa rank, and the quality scores (P > 0.05). Among the 32 most popular websites on the topic of ureteral stents, online information was highly variable. The readability of many of the websites was far higher than standard recommendations and the online information was questionable in many cases. These findings suggest a need for improved online resources in order to better educate patients about ureteral stents and also should inform physicians that popular websites may have incomplete information. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| Sweden | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Germany | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 4 | 57% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Librarian | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 10 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,408,671
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#687
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,000
of 445,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#29
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 445,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.