To assess the content, quality, and readability of health information on the internet for patients with orofacial granulomatosis, including material on benzoate and cinnamon-free diets. The first 100 websites drawn from searches using 8 key terms (2400 websites) across 3 search engines (Yahoo, Google, and Bing) were analysed. Duplicates or websites with unrelated information were excluded, which brought the number of websites included in the study to 12. To assess the quality of the information, we used the DISCERN questionnaire, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and Health on Net Seal. The readability was then analysed by applying the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease and Grade Level tests, the Automated Readability Index, and global traffic ranking (ALEXA). Separate assessment for both orofacial granulomatosis, and its management with a benzoate and cinnamon-free diet, showed that most websites (75%) were either ‘very poor’ or ‘poor’ in quality, with a mean DISCERN score of 31.4 out of 80. No website met all four JAMA benchmarks. Only two websites displayed the HONcode seal. Generally, health information was considered difficult to read, with a FRES ranging from 21.5 to 68, with a mean score of 48 (±13.2). To comprehend this information, readers would need to have, on average, a 10th grade US level education. The quality and readability of online information on orofacial granulomatosis is poor and difficult to read.
Orofacial granulomatosis Granulomatosis cheilitis Benzoate and cinnamon exclusion diet Internet DISCERN Health information
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The Academic Clinical Fellowship of D. Shanahan is partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Drs Daire Shanahan, James Ashworth-Holland and Konrad Staines declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
Wiesenfeld D, Ferguson MM, Mitchell DN, MacDonald DG, Scully C, Cochran K, et al. Oro-facial granulomatosis—a clinical and pathological analysis. QJM-INT J Med. 1985;5:101–13.Google Scholar
Al-Hamad A, Porter S, Fedele S. Orofacial granulomatosis. Dermatol Clin. 2015;33:433–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey N, Clarke A, White P, Wyn-Williams M, Garlick W. Altered body image: appearance-related concerns of people with visible disfigurement. J Adv Nur. 2004;48:443–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartan BE, Healy CM, McCreary CE, Flint SR, Rogers S, Toner ME. Characteristics of patients with orofacial granulomatosis. Oral Dis. 2011;17:696–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell HE, Escudier MP, Patel P, Challacombe SJ, Sanderson JD, Lomer MC. Cinnamon-and benzoate-free diet as a primary treatment for orofacial granulomatosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White A, Nunes C, Escudier M, Lomer MC, Barnard K, Shirlaw P, et al. Improvement in orofacial granulomatosis on a cinnamon-and benzoate-free diet. Inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2006;12:508–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, Dumitru RC, Pudule I, Santana S, et al. European citizens' use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner TH, Baker LC, Bundorf MK, Singer S. Use of the internet for health information by the chronically ill. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004;1:A13.Google Scholar
Riordain RN, McCreary C. Dental patients' use of the internet. Br Dent J. 2009;207:583–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC. Untangling the web—the impact of internet use on health care and the physician–patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68:218–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA. 2002;287:2869–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Edu Res. 2004;19:440–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:273–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nghiem AZ, Mahmoud Y, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for breast cancer. Breast. 2016;25:34–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar