Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction using a Google search. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of a Google search for “erectile dysfunction treatment” were reviewed. Webpages that contained written information on erectile dysfunction except those containing scientific publications and paywall protected webpages were included in further analysis. Typographic and treatment information were recorded. Readability was assessed using the Fleisch‐Kincaid grade level, the Gunning‐Fog index, the Coleman‐Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and presence of Health on the net (HON) code certification. Website typography, discussed treatment types, readability scores, and quality measures were reported. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the data as appropriate dependent on the normality of data. RESULTS: Eighty‐one webpages were included. Urologists and hospitals were the most common producers with 15 (18%) each. Seventy‐four (91%) webpages contained specific information on treatment for erectile dysfunction and 15 (19%) contained advertisements. Seventeen (21%) webpages were HON code certified. The median DISCERN score was 35 (IQR 26.5‐44) out of 80. The mean combined readability score was 12.32 (SD 1.91). The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1‐2) out of 4. Google rank had a small negative correlation with DISCERN score (τ = −0.16, P = .036). HON code certified webpages had higher DISCERN scores (median of 44 [IQR 35‐58.5] vs 32.5 [IQR 25.25‐42.25], U = 832, Z = 6561, P < .001). A linear regression was used to predict DISCERN score based on meeting each JAMA benchmark criterion (F(2, 78) = 22.7, P < .001) R (2) = 0.368, P < .001. Within this model the effects of meeting attribution (β = 11.09) and currency (β = 8.79) criterion were significant. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction is generally poor. However, easy to identify markers of quality like HON code certification, or meeting JAMA benchmark criterion for attribution and currency may help patients to navigate to better quality online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. Webpages are written at senior high school level, above any recommendations for patient medical information. Health professionals should use validated instruments to assess the quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction prior to publication to improve their utility for patients.