Purpose: Little is known whether information about eye conditions on the Internet is complete and accurate to support patient or layman decision making. Methods: Quality of content modules about age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was analyzed on 20 web sites. Content analysis covered 72 criteria in 11 groups. Each single criterion was rated with ‘1’ or ‘0’ (yes/no answer). Results: The interrater reliability between two observers was almost perfect (κ = 0.86). On average, 25.6% (±15.6) of the criteria were fulfilled. In the categories diagnostic procedures, therapy, preventive checkups, prevention and prognosis of AMD, only 12.7, 18.3, 20.0, 25.0 and 30.0%, respectively, of the required content was given. Conclusion: Our study shows, based upon the example of university eye hospitals, that the full potential to provide laymen with firsthand and up-to-date information has by far not yet been achieved. Further research is needed on how the Internet influences the communication between patient and ophthalmologist.

1.
Martins EN, Morse LS: Evaluation of internet websites about retinopathy of prematurity patient education. Br J Ophthalmol 2005;89:565–568.
2.
Lüchtenberg M, Kuhli-Hattenbach C, Sinangin Y, Ohrloff C, Schalnus R: Accessibility of health information on the internet to the visually impaired user. Ophthalmologica 2008;222:187–193.
3.
Fox S: Health information online. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Healthtopics_May05.pdf (accessed July 7, 2008).
4.
England CY, Nicholls AM: Advice available on the Internet for people with coeliac disease: an evaluation of the quality of websites. J Hum Nutr Diet 2004;17:547–559.
5.
Sambandam SN, Ramasamy V, Priyanka P, Ilango B: Quality analysis of patient information about knee arthroscopy on the World Wide Web. Arthroscopy 2007;23:509–513.
6.
Croft DR, Peterson MW: An evaluation of the quality and contents of asthma education on the World Wide Web. Chest 2002;121:1301–1307.
7.
Al-Bahrani A, Plusa S: The quality of patient-orientated internet information on colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2004;6:323–326.
8.
Maloney S, Ilic D, Green S: Accessibility, nature and quality of health information on the Internet: a survey on osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2005;44:382–385.
9.
Saithna A, Ajayi OO, Davis ET: The quality of Internet sites providing information relating to hip resurfacing. Surgeon 2008;6:85–87.
10.
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R: DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105–111.
11.
HON: The Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct. Geneva, Health on the Net Foundation. http://www.hon.ch /HONcode (accessed July 7, 2008).
12.
Aktionsforum Gesundheitsinformationssystem (afgis). http://www.afgis.de (accessed July 7, 2008).
13.
eEurope 2002: quality criteria for health-related websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4:e15. http://www.jmir.org/2002/3/e15/ (accessed July 7, 2008).
14.
Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, DeAngelis CD, Musacchio RA: Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. JAMA 2000;283:1600–1606.
15.
Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D: MedCERTAIN: quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net. Proc AMIA Symp 2000:230–234.
16.
Norman F: Organizing medical networked information (OMNI). Med Inform 1998;23:43–51.
17.
Schalnus R, Heinemann K, Romero R, Pinger P: Userorientierte Bewertung medizinischer Websites. Inf Biometr Epidemiol Med Biol 2001;32:267.
18.
Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A: Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. BMJ 1999;318:647–649.
19.
Baur C, Deering MJ: Proposed frameworks to improve the quality of health web sites: review. Med Gen Med 2000;2:E35.
20.
Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands eV, Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft eV: Leitlinien von BVA und DOG. http://www.augeninfo.de/leit/leit21.htm (accessed July 21, 2008).
21.
Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands eV, Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft eV: Die altersabhängige Makuladegeneration (Patienteninformation). http://www.dog.org/patienten/PatInfo_amd2007.pdf (accessed July 21, 2008).
22.
Berufsverband der Augenärzte Deutschlands eV, Deutsche Ophthalmologische Gesellschaft eV: Intravitreale Injektion: operative Medikamenteneingabe in das Auge (Patienteninformation). http://www.dog.org/patienten/PatInfo_IntravitrealeInjektion.pdf (accessed July 21, 2008).
23.
Stellungnahme der Retinologischen Gesellschaft, der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft und des Berufsverbands der Augenärzte Deutschlands zu aktuellen therapeutischen Möglichkeiten bei der neokulären altersabhängigen Makuladegenera- tion. Aktuelle therapeutische Möglichkeiten bei der neovaskulären altersabhängigen Makuladegeneration. Ophthalmologe 2007;104:628–634.
24.
Sawyer P, Flanders A, Wixon D: Making a Difference – The Impact of Inspections. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, ACM, 1996, pp 375–382.
25.
Schriver KA: Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Trans Prof Commun 1989;32:238–255.
26.
Cohen J: Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968;70:213–220.
27.
Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
28.
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA: Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 2001;285:2612–2621.
29.
Pennekamp PH, Kraft CN, von Engelhardt LV, Burian B, Schmitt O, Diedrich O: Quality analysis of internet information on epicondylitis radialis humeri. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006;144:218–222.
30.
Fox S: Online Health Search 2006. Washington, Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf (accessed June 22, 2008).
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.