Quality, Reliability, Readability, and Accountability of Online Information on Leukocoria

To evaluate the quality, reliability, and readability of online patient educational materials on leukocoria.

In this cross-sectional study, the Google search engine was searched for the terms "leukocoria" and "white pupil." The first 50 search outcomes were evaluated for each search term based on predefined inclusion criteria, excluding duplicates, peer-reviewed papers, forum posts, paywalled content, and multimedia links. Sources were categorized as "institutional" or "private." Three independent raters assessed each web-site for quality and reliability using DISCERN, Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode), and JAMA criteria. Readability was evaluated using seven formulas: Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Automated Readability Index (ARI), Linsear Write (LW), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI).

A total of 51 websites were included. Quality, assessed by the DISCERN tool, showed a median score of 4, denoting moderate to high quality, with no significant differences between institutional and private sites or search terms. HONcode scores indicated variable reliability and trustworthiness (median: 10, range: 3 to 16), with institutional sites excelling in financial disclosure and ad differentiation. Additionally, institutional and private sites performed well in reliability and accountability, as measured by the JAMA Benchmark criteria (median: 3; range: 1 to 4). Readability, averaging an 11.3 ± 3.7 grade level, did not differ significantly between site types or search terms, consistently falling short of the recommended sixth-grade level for patient educational materials.

The patient educational materials on leukocoria demonstrated moderate to high quality, commendable reliability, and accountability. However, the readability scores were above the recommended level for the layperson. [.