Purpose: To evaluate the quality, reliability, technical quality, and readability of online information related to childhood glaucoma.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, no human subjects were studied. Analysis was done for online websites on childhood glaucoma. The terms "childhood glaucoma," "pediatric glaucoma," "congenital glaucoma," "buphthalmos," and "big eyes" were entered into the Google search engine and the first 100 search results were assessed for quality, reliability, technical quality, and readability. Peer-reviewed articles, patient forum posts, dictionary definitions, and websites that appeared as targeted ads, were not in English, or were not focused on humans were excluded. Each website was evaluated for (1) quality and reliability using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria; (2) technical quality assessing 11 technical aspects; and (3) readability using six separate criteria (Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score and Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index score, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index).
Results: The median scores for the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria were 2.6 (range = 1 to 4.75; 1 = worst, 5 = best), 10 (range = 0 to 16; 0 = worst, 16 = best), and 2 (range = 0 to 4; 0 = worst, 4 = best), respectively. The median technical quality score was 0.7. Readability was poor among most websites, with a median Flesch-Kincaid grade Grade Level Score of 9.3. The median Gunning Fog Index score was 9.8. There was a statistically significantly higher JAMA score and Gunning Fog Index score among the private websites compared to the institutional websites. However, institutional websites had higher technical quality.
Conclusions: Online information on childhood glaucoma had poor to moderate quality and reliability. The technical quality is good; however, most websites' readability was above the recommended 5th to 6th grade reading level. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 20XX;X(X):XXX-XXX.].