Prostate cancer on the Internet--information or misinformation?

PURPOSE We assessed the quality of information available to patients on prostate cancer on the Internet. MATERIALS AND METHODS The search engine Webcrawler was used with the search term "prostate cancer" to generate a list of 75 websites which were reviewed for currency, disclosure, attribution, interactivity and content. A rating tool was designed including 50 elements considered essential for a comprehensive review of prostate cancer, and each website was judged for degree of coverage and accuracy (each rated on a scale of 1 to 3) of information for each element. RESULTS Of the 75 sites 39 contained information about prostate cancer. Only 9 sites indicated a date of last update within 6 months. References were rarely given (in 5) and a disclaimer was provided on less than half of the sites (18). The sites covered a mean of 24 elements (range 6 to 43) with a mean coverage rating of 1.0 to 2.6 (1.8 overall). Of 943 elements covered on 39 sites, 94% were completely correct, 5% were mostly correct and 1% was mostly incorrect. CONCLUSIONS The information on the Internet is of sufficient quality to aid in patient decision making. However, there are numerous shortcomings especially related to currency, disclosure and attribution. Degree of coverage is highly variable and there is a deficiency in balance of evidence found on many sites. The urologist needs to be aware of such shortcomings when counseling patients on prostate cancer.

[1]  S. Darmoni,et al.  Level of evidence as a future gold standard for the content quality of health resources on the internet. , 2003 .

[2]  D. Henson.  Cancer and the Internet , 1999, Cancer.

[3]  B Thirion,et al.  Level of Evidence as a Future Gold Standard for the Content Quality of Health Resources on the Internet , 2003, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[4]  P Devine,et al.  Internet use by patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy. , 2003, Urology.

[5]  J. Chin,et al.  Use of the internet for self-education by patients with prostate cancer. , 2001, Urology.

[6]  Eric Horwitz,et al.  Decision-making strategies for patients with localized prostate cancer. , 2002, Seminars in urologic oncology.

[7]  M. Steiner,et al.  Campbell's Urology, 7th ed. , 1998 .

[8]  J Sybil Biermann,et al.  Bladder cancer facts: accuracy of information on the Internet. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[9]  Donna L Berry,et al.  Treatment decision-making by men with localized prostate cancer: the influence of personal factors. , 2003, Urologic oncology.

[10]  M Emberton,et al.  The patient's dilemma: prostate cancer treatment choices. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[11]  S. Plusa,et al.  The quality of patient‐orientated internet information on colorectal cancer , 2004, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[12]  J. Scholefield,et al.  Finding the best from the rest: evaluation of the quality of patient information on the Internet. , 2003, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[13]  S. Brewster,et al.  Urology and the Internet: an evaluation of Internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics , 2000, BJU international.

[14]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Patient Education Materials about the Treatment of Early-Stage Prostate Cancer: A Critical Review , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  R. Kravitz,et al.  Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. , 2001, JAMA.