Search

Most cases of optic neuritis (ON) occur in women and in patients between the ages of 15 and 45 years, which represents a key demographic of individuals who seek health information using the internet. As clinical providers strive to ensure patients have accessible information to understand their condition, assessing the standard of online resources is essential. To assess the quality, content, accountability, and readability of online information for optic neuritis. This cross-sectional study analyzed 11 freely available medical sites with information on optic neuritis and used PubMed as a gold standard for comparison. Twelve questions were composed to include the information most relevant to patients, and each website was independently examined by four neuro-ophthalmologists. Readability was analyzed using an online readability tool. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, four criteria designed to assess the quality of health information further were used to evaluate the accountability of each website. Freely available online information. On average, websites scored 27.98 (SD ± 9.93, 95% CI 24.96-31.00) of 48 potential points (58.3%) for the twelve questions. There were significant differences in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of content across websites ( p  < .001). The mean reading grade level of websites was 11.90 (SD ± 2.52, 95% CI 8.83-15.25). Zero websites achieved all four JAMA benchmarks. Interobserver reliability was robust between three of four neuro-ophthalmologist (NO) reviewers (ρ = 0.77 between NO3 and NO2, ρ = 0.91 between NO3 and NO1, ρ = 0.74 between NO2 and NO1; all p  < .05). The quality of freely available online information detailing optic neuritis varies by source, with significant room for improvement. The material presented is difficult to interpret and exceeds the recommended reading level for health information. Most websites reviewed did not provide comprehensive information regarding non-therapeutic aspects of the disease. Ophthalmology organizations should be encouraged to create content that is more accessible to the general public., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s) except for the following: Professor Mollan reports consultancy fees (Invex 555 Therapeutics); advisory board fees (Invex therapeutics;Gensight) and speaker fees (Heidelberg engineering; Chugai-Roche Ltd; Allergan; Santen; Chiesi; and Santhera), all outside the submitted work., (© 2024 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)