Cosmetic facial surgery: are online resources reliable and do patients understand them?

Our aim was to assess the quality and readability of online resources regarding common cosmetic maxillofacial procedures. We searched Google for "rhytidectomy", "rhinoplasty", "orthognathic surgery", "genioplasty", "malar implants", "blepharoplasty", "otoplasty", and related terms. In each case we assessed the top 50 results for quality and readability. Quality was measured using the DISCERN questionnaire, benchmark criteria published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and accreditation by the HONcode (Health On the Net code). The Flesch-Kincaid reading grade, Flesch reading ease score, Gunning's fog index, and the Coleman-Liau index, were used to measure readability. A total of 350 sites were assessed and 200 were included in the study. The mean (SD) JAMA and DISCERN scores for all included websites indicated poor quality (0.49/4 (1.07) and 32.77/80 (10.57), respectively). Only eight sites (4%) were certified by the HONcode. There was a significant association between low DISCERN scores and Google Ads (p=0.009) and between low DISCERN scores and the websites of private clinicians or hospitals (p<0.001). The mean (SD) Flesch reading ease score and Gunning's fog score both indicated poor readability that required a moderately high level of literacy (50.59 (11.82) and 13.83 (2.76), respectively). The Flesch-Kincaid and Coleman-Liau scores indicated similar results. Adherence to the JAMA benchmark, certification by the HONcode, and relevant selection on Google Ads would improve quality. The avoidance of medical jargon and use of shorter sentences would improve readability and provide patients with comprehensible explanations that would allow them to have realistic expectations and take responsibility for their own health.