The quality of information about kidney transplantation on the World Wide Web

Clinical Transplantation

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 371-376

  Hanif, Faisal ^a   Abayasekara, Kumar ^a   Willcocks, Lisa ^a   Jolly, Elaine C ^a   Jamieson, Neville V ^a   Praseedom, Raaj K ^a   Goodacre, John A ^b   Read, Janet C ^c   Chaudhry, Afzal ^a   Gibbs, Paul ^a  

^a ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Internet; Kidney transplantation; Patients' education

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EUROPE; INTERNET; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; SEARCH ENGINE; UNITED STATES; VALIDITY;

HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; PATIENT EDUCATION;

EID: 34248202184     PISSN: 09020063     EISSN: 13990012     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2006.00652.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Nua Internet. How Many Online? 2002. Available at: Http://www.cybergeography.org/statistics.html (accessed on 4 January 2006).
2. Internet Usage and World Population Statistics, updated for December 31, 2005. Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed on 4 January 2006).
3. Taylor H. Harris Interactive. Cyberchondriacs Update 1 May, 2002. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/ index.asp?PID=299 (accessed on 4 January 2006).
4. Slakey DP, Nowfar S. Internet use by a multidisciplinary transplant clinic population. Transplantation 2003: 75: 155.
5. Sacchetti P, Zvara P, Plant MK. The internet and patient education-resources and reliability: Focus on a select urologic topic. Urology 1999: 53: 1117.
6. Edwards MH. Satisfying patients need for surgical information. Br J Surg 1990: 77: 463.
7. Goldsmith DM, Safran C. Using the Web to reduce postoperative pain following ambulatory surgery. Proc AMIA Symp 1999: 780.
8. Libertiny G., Perkins JMT, Magee TR, G alland RB. Varicose veins on the internet. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2000: 20: 386.
9. Murphy MA, Joyce WP. Information for surgical patients: Implications of the World Wide Web. Eur J Surg 2001: 167: 728.
10. Chestnutt IG. The nature and quality of periodontal related patient information on the World Wide Web. Br Dent J 2002: 192: 657.
11. Allen JW, Finch RJ, Coleman MG et al. The poor quality of information about laparoscopy on the World Wide Web as indexed by popular search engines. Surg Endosc 2002: 16: 170.
12. Bohacek I, Gomez M, Fish JS et al. An evaluation of internet sites for burn scar management. J Burn Care Rehabil 2003: 24: 246.
13. Soot CL, Moneta GL, Edwards JM et al. Vascular surgery and the internet: a poor source of patient-oriented information. J Vasc Surg 1999: 30: 84.
14. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering M, Moxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related websites: Review. BMJ 1999: 318: 647.
15. Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001: 107: 171.
16. Health on the Net Foundation. HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for Medical and Health Websites. Available at: http://www.hon.ch (accessed on 4 January 2006).
17. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review of internet health information quality initiatives. J Med Internet Res 2001: 3: e28.
18. Delamothe T. Quality of websites: Kitemarking the west wind. BMJ 2000: 321: 843.
19. Fox S, Rainie L. Pew Internet and American Life Project. The Online Health Care Revolution: How the Web Helps Americans Take Better Care of Themselves, November 26, 2000. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/ PPF/r/26/report_display.asp/ (accessed on 4 January 2006).
20. Ullrich PF Jr., Vaccaro AR. Patient education on the internet: opportunities and pitfalls. Spine 2002: 27: e185.