Published online Feb 18, 2020. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i2.82
Peer-review started: July 19, 2019
First decision: September 21, 2019
Revised: October 21, 2019
Accepted: November 28, 2019
Article in press: November 28, 2019
Published online: February 18, 2020
Processing time: 222 Days and 8.5 Hours
The demand for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. Information quality on the internet has been extensively analysed in relation to primary THA but no such analysis has ever been performed for revision THA. Our aim was to assess the quality and readability of this information. Three major internet search engines were searched for information on revision THA. All websites were assessed for quality of information using the DISCERN score, the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria and a novel scoring system specific to revision THA [Vancouver Revision Arthroplasty Information (VRAI) score]. Website readability was assessed, as was presence of the Health On the Net Foundation (HON) seal. The majority of websites (52%) were academic with a post-graduate reading level. Only 6.5% of websites had the HON seal. Twenty-eight percent of websites had a ‘good’ DISCERN score and only 28% had a ‘good’ score with the novel VRAI scoring system. Health information websites had significantly higher rates of ‘good’ VRAI scores (P = 0.008). Websites with the HON seal had significantly higher DISCERN scores (P = 0.01). All governmental websites were at a reading level suitable for patient review. Information on the internet relating to revision THA is of low quality, much lower than the quality of information on primary THA. We recommend governmental websites for their readability and health information websites for their quality of information specific to revision THA. Websites with the HON seal provide higher quality information and should be recommended to patients as reading material regarding revision THA.
Core tip: Information related to revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) on the internet is of generally poor quality and seems to be of lower quality than information relating to primary THA on the internet. Only 28% of websites had ‘good’ quality information as determined by both the validated DISCERN score and the novel revision THA-specific Vancouver Revision Arthroplasty Information score. We recommend that patients use governmental websites as these are the most readable on the internet. We also recommend the use of health information websites as these were of the highest quality overall. Academic websites should be avoided as sources of patient information given their advanced readability and overall lack of patient-relevant content relating to revision THA.