LASIK complications and the internet: Is the public being mislead?

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 46-54

  Fahey, Daragh Kennedy ^a,b   Weinberg, Julius ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b Institute of Health Sciences ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Internet; Keratomileusis, laser in situ; LASIK; Postoperative complications; Public

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER NETWORK; EVALUATION; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERNET; KERATOMILEUSIS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; ONLINE ANALYSIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; SCORING SYSTEM; WRITING;

EID: 3042829453     PISSN: 14388871     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5.1.e2     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Harris Poll. Internet penetration has leveled out over the last 12 months. 2001 Nov 7. URL: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp? PID=266 [accessed 2002 Sep 26]
2. Galloway P. Quality standards for medical publishing on the Web. 1996. URL: http://www.bhia.org/reference/documents/recommend_webquality.htm [accessed 2002 Sep 28]
3. Health On the Net Foundation. HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites. URL: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/ [accessed 2002 Sep 1]
4. Wyatt JC. Commentary: measuring quality and impact of the World Wide Web. BMJ 1997 Jun 28;314(7098):1879-1881. [Full text] [Medline]
5. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor-let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244-1245. [Medline]
6. Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA 1998 Feb 25;279(8):611-614. [Medline]
7. Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of the instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):569-573. [Full text] [Full text] [Medline]
8. Federal Citizen Information Center of the US General Services Administration. Consumer focus: LASIK eye surgery - is it right for you? URL: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cfocus/cfapril2001/focus.htm [accessed 2002 Sep 24].
9. Ambrosio R Jr, Wilson SE. Complications of laser in situ keratomileusis: etiology, prevention, and treatment. J Refract Surg 2001 May-Jun;17(3):350-379. [Medline]
10. Geggel HS, Talley AR. Delayed onset keratectasia following laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999 Apr;25(4):582-586. [Medline]
11. Argento C, Cosentino MJ, Tytiun A. Corneal ectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001 Sep;27(9):1440-1448. [Medline]
12. Stulting RD, Carr JD, Thompson KP, Waring GO 3rd, Wiley WM, Walker JG. Complication of laser in situ keratomileusis for the correction of myopia. Ophthalmology 1999 Jan;106(1):13-20. [Medline]
13. Iskander NG, Peters NT, Penno EA, Gimbel HV. Postoperative complications in laser in situ keratomileusis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2000 Aug;11(4):273-279. [Medline]
14. Tham VM, Maloney RK. Microkeratome complications of laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology 2000 May;107(5):920-924. [Medline]
15. Lindstrom RL, Hardten DR, Houtman DM, Witte B, Preschel N, Chu YR, et al. Six-month results of hyperopic and astigmatic LASIK in eyes with primary and secondary hyperopia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999;97:241-255; discussion 255-260. [Medline]
16. Lin RT, Maloney RK. Flap complications associated with lamellar refractive surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1999 Feb;127(2):129-136. [Medline]
17. Google. Home page. URL: http://www.google.com/ [accessed 2002 Sep 10]
18. Yahoo. Home page. URL: http://www.yahoo.co.uk/ [accessed 2002 Sep 12]
19. Pealer LN, Dorman SM. Evaluating health-related Web sites. J Sch Health 1997 Aug;67(6):232-235. [Medline]
20. Abbott VP. Web page quality: can we measure it and what do we find? A report of exploratory findings. J Public Health Med 2000 Jun;22(2):191-197. [Medline]
21. Health summit working group. Information quality tool. 2001 Jan 1. URL: http://hitiweb.mitretek.org/iq/default.asp [accessed 2002 Sep 18]
22. Southern California College of Optometry. Online LASIK info incomplete, study finds. URL: http://www.ihealthbeat.org/members/basecontent.asp?contentid= 24274&collectionid=548&program=4 [accessed 2002 Dec 28]
23. Singer JH. About LASIK: informed consent for laser-in-situ-keratomileusis (LASIK). URL: http://www.jeffreysingermd.com/Aboutlasik.htm [accessed 2002 Sep 17]
24. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-2700. [Medline]
25. Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):598-602. [Full text] [Medline]
26. Kamel Boulos MN, Roudsari AV, Gordon C, Muir Gray JA. The use of quality benchmarking in assessing web resources for the dermatology virtual branch library of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH). J Med Internet Res 2001 Jan-Mar;3(1):e5. [Full text] [Medline]
27. Internet Healthcare Coalition. eHealth ethics initiative. URL: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ethics/ethics.html [accessed 2002 Sep 20]
28. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen. Net Scoring: Critères de qualité de l'information de santé sur l'Internet. URL: http://www.chu-rouen.fr/dsii/publi/critqualv2.html [accessed 2002 Sep 22].
29. Delamothe T. Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind. BMJ 2000; 321: 843-844. [Full text] [Medline]