A systematic review on the quality of the information on the internet related to perineal trauma

Vishalli Ghai, Stergios Doumouchtsis, Vasilios Pergialiotis

Citation

Vishalli Ghai, Stergios Doumouchtsis, Vasilios Pergialiotis. A systematic review on the quality of the information on the internet related to perineal trauma. PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017078212

Available from: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078212

Review question

What is the quality of the information available on the internet related to perineal trauma?

Searches

Sources: search engines, google.com, yahoo.com, bing.com, ask.com, aol.com.

Publication period: all those currently available.

Websites available in English or facility to translate to English.

Keywords used in searches: perineal trauma, perineal tear, perineal laceration, obstetric trauma, third degree tear, fourth degree tear, obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Exclusion criteria of websites: advertisements of products, hospital, practitioners, blogs/personal experience, scientific articles/guidelines, password access, videos, book chapters.

Types of study to be included

Not applicable - websites used for this review.

Condition or domain being studied

Quality of health information on the internet related to perineal trauma.

Participants/population

Information on perineal trauma in human females.

 

Intervention(s), exposure(s)

Information on perineal trauma available on internet.

Comparator(s)/control

Any websites related to perineal trauma.

Context

Primary outcome(s)

To assess quality of information for patients using validated instrument. 

Timing and effect measures

Using validated instruments:

  • DISCERN
  • Felsch reading ease score 
  • Credibility using a 10 point criteria
  • Guidelines- RCOG guidance on perineal trauma.

Secondary outcome(s)

Demographics of websites: country, funding of website, disease focused, patient focused, patient forum, privacy statement, approval (HON, information standard).

Data extraction (selection and coding)

Performed by two independent reviewers based on eligibility criteria.

Discrepancies will be resolved by a third senior reviewer.

Risk of bias (quality) assessment

Inter rater reliability coefficient (ICC) to assess agreement between both reviewers.

Strategy for data synthesis

Qualitative synthesis using mean and standard deviation to describe results from instruments and inter-rater coefficient to assess agreement.

Analysis of subgroups or subsets

Based on website demographics.

Contact details for further information

Vishalli Ghai
vishalli.ghai25@googlemail.com

Organisational affiliation of the review

CHORUS: an International Collaboration for Harmonising Research Outcomes and Standards In Urogynaecology

 

Review team members and their organisational affiliations

Miss Vishalli Ghai. Epsom General Hospital
Professor Stergios Doumouchtsis. Epsom General Hospital
Dr Vasilios Pergialiotis.

Anticipated or actual start date

03 April 2017

Anticipated completion date

03 April 2018

Funding sources/sponsors

None

Conflicts of interest

None known

Language

English

Country

England

Stage of review

Review_Ongoing

Subject index terms status

Subject indexing assigned by CRD

Subject index terms

Episiotomy; Female; Humans; Internet; Pregnancy

Date of registration in PROSPERO

21 November 2017

Date of publication of this version

28 September 2017

Details of any existing review of the same topic by the same authors

 

Stage of review at time of this submission

Stage / Started / Completed

Preliminary searches / Yes / Yes

Piloting of the study selection process / Yes / Yes

Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria / Yes / No

Data extraction / No / No

Risk of bias (quality) assessment / No / No

Data analysis / No / No