Assessing The Quality And Reliability Of Health Information On ERCP Using The DISCERN InstrumentKaicker J1, Dang W2and Mondal T3*
- Corresponding Author:
- Dr. Tapas Mondal
Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric Cardiology
McMaster University Medical Center
1280 Main Street West, Hamilton
Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1
Tel: (905) 521-2100 ext 75242
Fax: (905) 521-7914
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: August 11, 2013; Accepted date: October 11, 2013; Published date: October 14, 2013
Citation: Kaicker J, Dang W, Mondal T (2013) Assessing the Quality and Reliability of Health Information on ERCP Using the DISCERN Instrument. Health Care Current Reviews 1:104. doi:10.4172/hccr.1000104
Copyright: © 2013 Kaicker J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technique that uses both fluoroscopic imaging and luminal endoscopy to help diagnose and treated pancreatobiliary pathologies. With increasing use of the internet to gain medical competence, the purpose of this investigation is to assess the quality of online health information about the ERCP procedure. Methods: ERCP related websites were assessed using the Google, Yahoo and Bing search engines. The DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks were used to critically assess each websites. A total of 60 websites were reviewed with 7 websites excluded based on the exclusion criteria established. After removal of duplicate websites, a total of 24 unique websites were assessed. Websites that were exclusively visually based, could be modified by the general population and banner advertisements were not included in the investigation. Results: The average DISCERN score was 42.2 (9.1) for the 24 unique websites assessed. Using the JAMA benchmarks, appropriate authorship and attribution of references were seen in 25% and 29% of websites respectively. Currency, which ensures that website developers provide dates when content is posted was only seen in 13% of cases with disclosure, indicating potential conflict of interest, seen in 17% of cases. Conclusion: The overall quality of websites discussing ERCP is of low to moderate quality. The highest scoring websites were concise, with clear aims and described the procedures with benefits and associated risks. The lowest scoring websites failed to adequately reference information and describe additional treatment options. Websites that appeared first on each search engine for ERCP did not necessarily score better, demonstrating the importance of providing patients with high quality resources. Future investigation should use additional critical appraisal tools to assess ERCP related websites and assess the impact of varied formats (text, animations) on the quality of information provided.