Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet
There is no systematic evaluation of online health information pertaining to obstetric anal sphincter injury. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy, credibility, reliability, and readability of online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury.
Materials and methods
Multiple search engines were searched. The first 30 webpages were identified for each keyword and considered eligible if they provided information regarding obstetric anal sphincter injury. Eligible webpages were assessed by two independent researchers for accuracy (prioritised criteria based upon the RCOG Third and Fourth Degree Tear guideline); credibility; reliability; and readability.
Fifty-eight webpages were included. Seventeen webpages (30%) had obtained Health On the Net certification, or Information Standard approval and performed better than those without such approvals (p = 0.039). The best overall performing website was http://www.pat.nhs.uk (score of 146.7). A single webpage (1%) fulfilled the entire criteria for accuracy with a score of 18: www.tamesidehospital.nhs.uk. Twenty-nine webpages (50%) were assessed as credible (scores ≥7). A single webpage achieved a maximum credibility score of 10: www.meht.nhs.uk. Over a third (21 out of 58) were rated as poor or very poor. The highest scoring webpage was http://www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk (score 62). No webpage met the recommended Flesch Reading Ease Score above 70. The intra-class coefficient between researchers was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.96) for accuracy and reliability assessments.
Online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury often uses language that is inappropriate for a lay audience and lacks sufficient accuracy, credibility, and reliability.
KeywordsAccuracy Credibility Obstetric anal sphincter injury Online information Quality Systematic review
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 3.Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. p. 1–19. 2015. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg29/. Accessed 8 February 2018.
- 6.Borello-France D, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Fecal and urinary incontinence in primiparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:863–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000232504.32589.3b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Duggan M, Fox S. Health Online 2013. 2013. 1–55. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed 21 February 2018.
- 10.Fox S. Health Topics. 2011. 1–33. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/HealthTopics.aspx. Accessed 8t February 2018.
- 11.Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2010. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2018.
- 16.Kincaid JP, Fishburn RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station; Memphis, TN; 1975.Google Scholar