CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationOvarian function and disorders

Analysis of the quality, accuracy, and readability of patient information on polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) on the internet available in English: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Vågenes, Helene, Pranić, Shelly Melissa·2023·Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
DOI 10.1186/s12958-023-01100-xPMC PMC10184410
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Online information about PCOS lacks reliability for patients seeking information about the disease. Thus, we aimed to perform an updated analysis of the quality, accuracy, and readability of patient information on PCOS available online. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using the top five Google Trends search terms in English associated with PCOS, including “symptoms,” “treatment,” “test,” “pregnancy,” and “causes.” Five separate searches in Bing, Yahoo, and Google were performed to obtain the first 10 unique webpages for each term that was categorized as commercial, non-profit organization, scientific resources, or private foundation. We used the 16-item DISCERN with Likert-responses (minimum 1, maximum 5) where the total is 80 and lowest is 16, clarity with the 32-item EQIP, where responses of no = 0 and yes = 1 (minimum 0, maximum 32), and accuracy scores with 1 denoting poor and 5 completely accurate information; low scores of each corresponded to poorly reported information. We assessed readability with Flesch-Kincaid reading ease index, where higher scores correspond to reading ease, and lower grades correspond to easier readability with Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Gunning-Fog, Coleman-Liau index, automated readability index, New Dale-Chall Readability, and simple measure of gobbledygook. We additionally assessed word and sentence characteristics. We used Kruskal-Wallis test to compare scores according to webpage categories. Results: Out of 150 webpages, most were commercial (n = 85, 57%), followed by non-profit organizations (n = 44, 29%), scientific resources (n = 13, 9%) and private foundations (n = 6, 4%). Google webpages had higher median DISCERN score ([Md] = 47.0) than Bing ([Md] = 42.0) and Yahoo ([Md] = 43.0) webpages; P = 0.023. No difference in EQIP scores according to search engine was found (P = 0.524). Predominantly, webpages from private foundations had higher DISCERN and EQIP scores, although comparisons were not statistically significant (P = 0.456) and P = 0.653.). Accuracy and readability were similar across search engines and webpage categories (P = 0.915, range 5.0–5.0) and (P = 0.208, range 4.0–5.0). Conclusions: Quality and clarity of the data were fair according to search engine and category. Accuracy of information was high, showing that the public may encounter accurate information about PCOS. However, the readability of the information was high, reflecting a need for more readable resources about PCOS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12958-023-01100-x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The majority (n = 5) of website studies involved analysis of content from search engine results.

    “The majority (n = 5) involved analysis of content from search engine results [46,47,91,94,95], while one each looked at content in teen and women’s digital magazines [93], French language internet forums [90], and a specific PCOS-related website [92].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [91]

  • More recent studies highlighted a high number of websites with a commercial background.

    “More recent studies highlighted the high number of websites in their findings with a commercial background [46,47,91], also pointing out a possible advantage in the quality of results when using Google, compared to other search engines [91].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [91]

  • A study pointed out a possible advantage in the quality of results when using Google compared to other search engines.

    “More recent studies highlighted the high number of websites in their findings with a commercial background [46,47,91], also pointing out a possible advantage in the quality of results when using Google, compared to other search engines [91].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [91]

  • Eight included studies in the scoping review related to PCOS content on websites.

    “Eight included studies related to PCOS content on websites [46,47,90,91,92,93,94,95] (Supplementary File S3).”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [91]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [43]European Commission. European citizens’ digital health literacy report. Available from: 10.2759/86596. · DOI
  2. [48]Storino A, Castillo-Angeles M, Watkins AA, Vargas C, Mancias JD, Bullock A, et al. Assessing the Accuracy and Readability of Online Health Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):831-7. 27144966

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vågenes, H., & Pranić, S. M.
Affiliations
University of Split (HR)
Corresponding author
Pranić, Shelly Melissa
ORCID
Pranić, Shelly Melissa
Venue
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-05-15
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
44-44
ISSN
1477-7827 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12958-023-01100-x
PMC
PMC10184410
OpenAlex
W4376610603
Cited by
10
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, online health information, health information quality, readability, information accuracy, DISCERN, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, search engines, commercial health websites, patient information
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Reproducibility of Results, Internet, Comprehension, Health Literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review