The aim of this study was to assess the scientific accuracy and the readability level of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. The search engines Google™, Yahoo™ and Bing™ were searched independently by assessors in November 2014 using the following keywords: “bladder cancer”, “kidney cancer”, “patient bladder cancer”, “patient kidney cancer” and “bladder and kidney cancer”. Only English-language websites were selected on the bases of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessors independently reviewed the findings and evaluated the accuracy and quality of each website by using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The readability of the websites was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. Sixty-two websites were finally included in the study. The overall accuracy scores varied; for the DISCERN, the range was 28 to 76; out of 80 (mean ± SD, 47.1 ± 12.1; median = 46.0, interquartile range (IQR) = 19.2), and for the LIDA, the range was 52 to 125; out of 144 (mean ± SD, 101.9 ± 15.2; median, 103; IQR, 16.5). The creators of these websites were universities and research centres (n = 25, 40%), foundations and associations (n = 10, 16%), commercial and pharmaceutical companies (n = 13, 21%), charities and volunteer work (n = 4, 6%) and non-university educational bodies (n = 10, 16%). The readability scores (mean ± SD) were 11.2 ± 2.2 for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and 11.2 ± 1.6 for the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. The accuracy and the quality of the websites on kidney and bladder cancers varied. In most websites, there were deficiencies in clarity of aims, presenting symptoms, investigations and treatment options. The readability matched grades 10–11 literacy levels—a level above the public readability level. The study highlights the needs for further improvement of the online information created for public and patients with kidney and bladder cancers.
Kidney cancer Bladder cancer The Internet Online resources Patients’ education
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This work was funded by the College of Medicine Research Center, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The Institutional Review Board (IRB), College of Medicine King Saud University, has approved the project, and the approval number is F05/2014.
Azer SA participated in the study design and development and analysis and interpretation of data, construction of figures and tables and writing the manuscript. Alghofaili MM, AlSultan RM and Alrumaih NS participated in the data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, construction of tables and review of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Data Sharing Statement
No additional data are available.
Miller DC, Ruterbusch J, Colt JS, Davis FG, Linehan WM, Chow WH, Schwartz K (2010) Contemporary clinical epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma: insight from a population based case-control study. J Urol 184(6):2254–2258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Leibovich BC, Lohse CM, Crispen PL, Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Blute ML, Cheville JC (2010) Histological subtype is an independent predictor of outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 183(4):1309–1315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Gofrit ON, Orevi M (2016) Diagnostic challenges of kidney cancer: a systematic review of the role of positron emission tomography-computerized tomography. J Urol 196(3):648–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Chang SS, Boorjian SA, Chou R, Clark PE, Daneshmand S, Konety BR, Pruthi R, Quale DZ, Ritch CR, Seigne JD, Skinner EC, Smith ND, McKiernan JM (2016) Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline. J Urol 196(4):1021–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bellmunt J, Orsola A, Leow JJ, Wiegel T, De Santis M, Horwich A, ESMO Guidelines Working Group (2014) Bladder cancer: ESMO practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25(Suppl 3):iii40–iii48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Freedman ND, Silverman DT, Hollenbeck AR, Schatzkin A, Abnet CC (2011) Association between smoking and risk of bladder cancer among men and women. JAMA 306(7):737–745CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Kiriluk KJ, Prasad SM, Patel AR, Steinberg GD, Smith ND (2012) Bladder cancer risk from occupational and environmental exposures. Urol Oncol 30(2):199–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Burger M, Catto JW, Dalbagni G, Grossman HB, Herr H, Karakiewicz P, Kassouf W, Kiemeney LA, La Vecchia C, Shariat S, Lotan Y (2013) Epidemiology and risk factors of urothelial bladder cancer. Eur Urol 63(2):234–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fernandes ET, Manivel JC, Reddy PK, Ercole CJ (1996) Cyclophosphamide associated bladder cancer--a highly aggressive disease: analysis of 12 cases. J Urol 156(6):1931–1933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pandya E, Bajorek BV (2016) Assessment of web-based education resources informing patients about stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. J Clin Pharm Ther 41(6):667–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Anderson JG, Rainey MR, Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of CyberHealthcare on the physician-patient relationship. J Med Syst 27(1):67–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Azer SA (2014) Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students? Eur J GastroenterolHepatol 26(2):155–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53:105–111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Danino J, Muzaffar J, Mitchell-Innes A, Howard J, Coulson C (2016) Quality of information available via the Internet for patients with otological conditions. Otol Neurotol 37(8):1063–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Charnock D The DISCERN handbook. Quality criteria for consumer health information on treatment choices. Radcliffe Medical Press, Ltd, Oxon, United Kingdom Available at:http://www.discern.org.uk/discern.pdf [Accessed 15 November 2016].
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington: Department of Education (US); 2006. Available at: URL: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo .asp?pubid=2006483 [Accessed 15 Nov. 2016].
Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L (2006) A systematic review of read- ability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 33:352–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M, Lazard A, Agrawal D (2014) Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointest Endosc 80:284–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Azer SA, AlSwaidan NM, Alshwairikh LA, AlShammari JM (2015) Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students? BMJ Open 5:e008187CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Polit DF, Beck CT (2010) Essentials of nursing research: appraising evidence for nursing practice, 7th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar
Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16(6):671–692Google Scholar
Best J, Muzaffar J, Mitchell-Innes A (2015) Quality of information available via the Internet for patients with head and neck cancer: are we improving? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(11):3499–3505Google Scholar
Morgan T, Schmidt J, Haakonsen C, Lewis J, Della Rocca M, Morrison S et al (2014) Using the Internet to seek information about genetic and rare diseases: a case study comparing data from 2006 and 2011. JMIR Res Protoc 3:e10CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Carlsson T, Bergman G, Karlsson A-M, Mattsson E (2015) Content and quality of information websites about congenital heart defects following a prenatal diagnosis. Interactive Interact J Med Res 4(1):e4Google Scholar
Goslin RA, Elhassan HA (2013) Evaluating Internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery. Laryngoscope 123(7):1626–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Fast AM, Deibert CM, Hruby GW, Glassberg KI (2013) Evaluating the quality of Internet health resources in pediatric urology. J Pediatr Urol 9(2):151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Borgmann H, Wölm JH, Vallo S, Mager R, Huber J, Breyer J, Salem J, Loeb S, Haferkamp A, Tsaur I 2017. Prostate cancer on the web-expedient tool for patients’ decision-making? J Cancer Educ 32(1):135–140.Google Scholar
Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL (2003) Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 348:721–772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar