Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Quality Assessment of the Information Accessible to Patients on the Internet About the Whipple Procedure

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Internet has become a central source of information on health-related issues. The aim of this study is to assess the quality and readability of online information present on the Whipple surgical procedure by applying recognized scoring tools.

Methods

A search using the top three online search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) was conducted in July 2020. Websites were classified as academic, physician, commercial or unspecified. The quality of information was assessed using the JAMA and DISCERN assessment instruments and presence of a HONcode seal. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES).

Results

A total of 34 unique sources were included in our study. The average JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 2.22 ± 0.48 and 47.28 ± 1.17, respectively, with a median of 1.9 (range 0–4) and 47 (range 18–71), respectively. Website classification distribution was 38% academic, 18% commercial, 9% unspecified, and 1% from physician-based websites. Physician websites had the highest JAMA score with a mean of 3 ± 0.46. Unspecified websites had the highest DISCERN score with a mean of 54.60 ± 1.09. Only 3 websites had the HONcode seal. Physician websites had a significantly higher JAMA mean score than academic websites (p-value = 0.004). Readability was difficult and is on the level of university students.

Conclusion

The results of this study show a poor quality of online information present on the Whipple surgery. Academic and physician websites need to improve the quality of their websites on the procedure. More HONcode-certified websites are needed as they are the best source for information on this operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Griffin JF, Poruk KE, Wolfgang CL (2015) Pancreatic cancer surgery: past, present, and future. Chin J Cancer Res 27:332–348. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2015.06.07

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA (2006) One thousand consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies. Ann Surg 244:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000217673.04165.ea

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013) Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 63:11–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM (2014) Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res 74:2913–2921. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-0155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Adam MA, Choudhury K, Dinan MA et al (2015) Minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer: practice patterns and short-term outcomes among 7061 patients. Ann Surg 262:372–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M et al (2018) FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. New Engl J Med 379:2395–2406. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1809775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan SS-L, Goonawardene N (2017) Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 19:e9–e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013 (2014) Accessed 2020 https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/acs/acs-28.html#:~:text=Highlights,handheld%20computer%20(Table%201)

  9. Number of internet users in the United States from 2000 to 2019 (2020) Accessed June 2020: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276445/number-of-internet-users-in-the-united-states/

  10. Shoukat S (2019) Cell phone addiction and psychological and physiological health in adolescents. EXCLI J 18:47–50

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L et al (2003) The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. physicians. J Med Internet Res 5:e17. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Sato N, Hasegawa Y, Saito A et al (2018) Association between chronological depressive changes and physical symptoms in postoperative pancreatic cancer patients. Biopsychosoc Med 12:13–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-018-0132-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Al-Ubaydli M (2005) Using search engines to find online medical information. PLoS Med 2:e228–e228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Corcelles R, Daigle CR, Talamas HR, Brethauer SA, Schauer PR (2015) Assessment of the quality of Internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis Off J Am Soc Bariatr Surg 11:539–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2014.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eysenbach G, Köhler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324:573–577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28:603–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-4825(98)00037-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A (2011) Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 169:53–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Laversin S, Baujard V, Gaudinat A, Simonet MA, Boyer C (2011) Improving the transparency of health information found on the internet through the honcode: a comparative study. Stud Health Technol Inform 169:654–658

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fallis D, Frické M (2002) Indicators of accuracy of consumer health information on the Internet: a study of indicators relating to information for managing fever in children in the home. J Am Med Inform Assoc JAMIA 9:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2002.0090073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277:1244–1245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 53:105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Gaduputi V (2019) Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer: global trends, etiology and risk factors. World J Oncol 10:10–27. https://doi.org/10.14740/wjon1166

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Trede M, Schwall G, Saeger HD (1990) Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality. Ann Surg 211:447–458. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199004000-00011

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Whipple Procedure (2020) Accessed June 2020 https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/pancreatic-cancer/whipple-procedure

  25. O’Neill SC, Baker JF, Fitzgerald C et al (2014) Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet. Spine 39:E645-649. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, Hogan NA, McCarthy T (2013) Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc North Am Int Arthrosc Assoc 29:1095–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanif F, Abayasekara K, Willcocks L et al (2007) The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the world wide web. Clin Transplant 21:371–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00652.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaicker J, Borg Debono V, Dang W, Buckley N, Thabane L (2010) Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument. BMC Med 8:59. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tavare AN, Alsafi A, Hamady MS (2012) Analysis of the quality of information obtained about uterine artery embolization from the internet. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:1355–1362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0345-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Hussein H. Khachfe and Mohamad A. Chahrour have contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon

    Hussein H. Khachfe & Mohamad A. Chahrour

  2. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, USA

    Joseph R. Habib & Jun Yu

  3. Department of Surgery, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

    Faek R. Jamali

Authors
  1. Hussein H. Khachfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohamad A. Chahrour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph R. Habib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Faek R. Jamali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HHK and MAC were responsible for the concept and design of the study; HHK and MAC provided data acquisition; HHK, MAC and JRF contributed to statistical analysis; HHK, MAC JRH, JY and FRJ interpreted the results; HHK, MAC and FRJ analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript, approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hussein H. Khachfe.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors declare no funding was received for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khachfe, H.H., Chahrour, M.A., Habib, J.R. et al. A Quality Assessment of the Information Accessible to Patients on the Internet About the Whipple Procedure. World J Surg 45, 1853–1859 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-05989-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-05989-6

Search

Navigation