Obstetric anal sphincter injury: a systematic review of information available on the internet

Vishalli Ghai, Vasilios Pergialiotis, Haider Jan, James M. N. Duffy, Stergios K. Doumouchtsis

On behalf of CHORUS: an International Collaboration Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women’s Health


Objective

There is no systematic evaluation of online health information pertaining to obstetric anal sphincter injury. Therefore, we evaluated the accuracy, credibility, reliability, and readability of online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury.

Materials and methods

Multiple search engines were searched. The first 30 webpages were identified for each keyword and considered eligible if they provided information regarding obstetric anal sphincter injury. Eligible webpages were assessed by two independent researchers for accuracy (prioritised criteria based upon the RCOG Third and Fourth Degree Tear guideline); credibility; reliability; and readability.

Results

Fifty-eight webpages were included. Seventeen webpages (30%) had obtained Health On the Net certification, or Information Standard approval and performed better than those without such approvals (p = 0.039). The best overall performing website was http://www.pat.nhs.uk (score of 146.7). A single webpage (1%) fulfilled the entire criteria for accuracy with a score of 18: www.tamesidehospital.nhs.uk. Twenty-nine webpages (50%) were assessed as credible (scores ≥7). A single webpage achieved a maximum credibility score of 10: www.meht.nhs.uk. Over a third (21 out of 58) were rated as poor or very poor. The highest scoring webpage was http://www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk (score 62). No webpage met the recommended Flesch Reading Ease Score above 70. The intra-class coefficient between researchers was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–0.96) for accuracy and reliability assessments.

Conclusion

Online information concerning obstetric anal sphincter injury often uses language that is inappropriate for a lay audience and lacks sufficient accuracy, credibility, and reliability.

 
PublicationPaul Andrew