↓ Skip to main content

Web-based information on the treatment of oral leukoplakia - quality and readability

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Web-based information on the treatment of oral leukoplakia - quality and readability
Published in
Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1111/jop.12459
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paswach Wiriyakijja, Stefano Fedele, Stephen Porter, Richeal Ni Riordain

Abstract

To categorise the content and assess the quality and readability of the online information regarding the treatment for oral leukoplakia. An online search using the term 'leukoplakia treatment' was carried out on 8th June 2015 using the Google search engine. The content, quality and readability of the first 100 sites were explored. The quality of the web information was assessed using the following tools, the DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks for website analysis and the HON seal. Readability was assessed via the Flesch Reading Ease Score. The search strategy generated 357 000 sites on the Google search engine. Due to duplicate links, non-operating links and irrelevant links, a total of 47 of the first 100 websites were included in this study. The mean overall rating achieved by included websites using the DISCERN instrument was 2.3. With regard to the JAMA benchmarks, the vast majority of examined websites (95.7%) completely fulfilled the disclosure benchmark and less than 50% of included websites met the three remaining criteria. A mean total readability score of 47.5 was recorded with almost 90% of websites having a readability level ranging from fairly difficult to very difficult. Based on this study, the online health information regarding oral leukoplakia has challenging readability with content of questionable accuracy. As patients often search for health information online, it would be prudent for clinicians to highlight the caution with which online information should be interpreted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Lecturer 3 6%
Librarian 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 25%
Psychology 6 13%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 27%

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 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#10,938,960
of 12,343,107 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine
#415
of 523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,207
of 272,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Oral Pathology & Medicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,343,107 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 523 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 272,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.