Quality Assessment of Online Information on Laryngeal Cancer: A Comparatıve Analysis of the most Visited Websites in Turkey and the United Kingdom.

An Erratum to this article was published on December 20, 2025. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bshr/article/1842377

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the quality of online information regarding laryngeal cancer and to compare websites from Turkey and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Websites were identified using the Google search engine with the keyword "laryngeal cancer," accessed through servers located in Turkey and the United Kingdom. The first 25 eligible websites from each country were selected, and a total of 50 websites were evaluated. The DISCERN tool was used to assess the quality of the information, and two independent otorhinolaryngology specialists conducted the evaluations. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa. Differences between Turkish and English sources were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: The mean total DISCERN score was 46.13 ± 10.37 for English websites and 43.77 ± 8.97 for Turkish websites, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.414). The overall mean score was 44.89 ± 9.75. English websites scored significantly higher on Question 1 (clarity of aims, p = 0.0052), Question 4 (disclosure of information sources, p = 0.0466), Question 7 (availability of additional support resources, p = 0.0314), and Question 12 (description of consequences of no treatment, p = 0.0097). CONCLUSIONS The quality of laryngeal cancer-related information found online was moderate and comparable between Turkish and English websites. However, persistent deficiencies in source-related transparency highlight the need for quality improvement and regulatory oversight in this domain.

Keywords

• Laryngeal Neoplasms
• Health Information
• Internet
• Quality of Health Care
• Patient Education

Supporting Institution

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work. Financial disclosure: The authors have declared that there is no financial support fort his study

Ethical Statement

This study did not involve human participants, animals, or sensitive personal data requiring ethical approval. Therefore, ethics committee approval was not applicable.

LARINKS KANSERIYLE İLGILI ÇEVRIMIÇI BILGILERIN KALITE DEĞERLENDIRMESI: TÜRKIYE VE BIRLEŞIK KRALLIK’TAKI EN ÇOK ZIYARET EDILEN WEB SITELERININ KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALIZI

An Erratum to this article was published on December 20, 2025. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bshr/article/1842377

Abstract

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada, larinks kanseriyle ilgili çevrimiçi bilgilerin kalitesini değerlendirmek ve Türkiye ile Birleşik Krallık’taki web sitelerini karşılaştırmak amacıyla kesitsel bir araştırma yapılmıştır. YÖNTEM: Web siteleri, “larinks kanseri” anahtar kelimesi kullanılarak, Türkiye ve Birleşik Krallık'ta konumlandırılmış sunucular aracılığıyla Google arama motoru üzerinden tespit edilmiştir. Her iki ülkeden uygun ilk 25 web sitesi seçilmiş ve toplamda 50 web sitesi değerlendirilmiştir. Bilgi kalitesini değerlendirmek için DISCERN aracı kullanılmış ve değerlendirmeler iki bağımsız kulak burun boğaz (KBB) uzmanı tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Gözlemciler arası uyum Cohen’in kappa katsayısı ile analiz edilmiştir. Türkçe ve İngilizce kaynaklar arasındaki farklar Wilcoxon rank-sum testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. BULGULAR: İngilizce web siteleri için ortalama toplam DISCERN puanı 46,13 ± 10,37; Türkçe web siteleri için ise 43,77 ± 8,97 olarak bulunmuş ve gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark saptanmamıştır (p = 0,414). Genel ortalama puan 44,89 ± 9,75 idi. İngilizce siteler, Soru 1 (amaçların açıklığı, p = 0,0052), Soru 4 (bilgi kaynaklarının açıklanması, p = 0,0466), Soru 7 (ek destek kaynaklarının sunumu, p = 0,0314) ve Soru 12 (tedavi uygulanmadığında ortaya çıkabilecek sonuçların açıklanması, p = 0,0097) açısından anlamlı derecede daha yüksek puan aldı. SONUÇ: Larinks kanseriyle ilgili çevrimiçi bilgilerin kalitesi orta düzeyde olup, Türkçe ve İngilizce web siteleri arasında benzerlik göstermektedir. Ancak, bilgi kaynaklarına ilişkin şeffaflıkta süregelen eksiklikler, bu alanda kalite iyileştirmesi ve düzenleyici denetim ihtiyacını ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Larinks Neoplazileri
• Sağlık Bilgisi
• İnternet
• Sağlık Hizmetlerinde Kalite
• Hasta Eğitimi

References

1. 1. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Annals of internal medicine. 2011;155(2):97-107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
2. 2. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, et al. The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. American journal of public health. 1997;87(6):1027-1030. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.6.1027
3. 3. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, et al. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
4. 4. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV, et al. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. American journal of public health. 2002;92(8):1278-1283. doi:https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.8.1278
5. 5. Robinson TN. Community health behavior change through computer network health promotion: preliminary findings from Stanford Health-Net. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. Oct-Nov 1989;30(2-3):137-44. doi:10.1016/0169-2607(89)90065-5
6. 6. Muhtaroglu A, Uygur FA, Ozdemir K. Navigating the depths of digital knowledge: Assessing the seas of YouTube for reliable and high-quality information on appendicitis. Medicine Science. 2023;12(3) doi: 10.5455/medscience.2023.05.065
7. 7. Coluk Y, Senocak MI. Patient education in the digital age: An analysis of quality and readability of online information on rhinoplasty. Medicine (Baltimore). Aug 9 2024;103(32):e39229. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000039229
8. 8. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G,et al. an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. Feb 1999;53(2):105-11. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105

9. 9. van Heijningen RI, Mannaerts GH, Blondeel PN, et al. PLink, plastic surgery and the Internet. Br J Plast Surg. Mar 1998;51(2):86-9. doi:10.1054/bjps.1997.0110
10. 10. Alkurdi E, Li R, Alkurdi D, et al. Comparative Quality Analysis of Bullous Pemphigoid Information Across Six Social Media Platforms. Cureus. Mar 2025;17(3):e81163. doi:10.7759/cureus.81163
11. 11. Riestra-Ayora J, Vaduva C, Esteban-Sanchez J, et al. ChatGPT as an information tool in rhinology. Can we trust each other today? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. Jun 2024;281(6):3253-3259. doi:10.1007/s00405-024-08581-5
12. 12. Nielsen JPS, Christian vB, and Grønhøj C. Validity of the large language model ChatGPT (GPT4) as a patient information source in otolaryngology by a variety of doctors in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department. Acta Oto-Laryngologica. 2023/11/01 2023;143(9):779-782. doi:10.1080/00016489.2023.2254809
13. 13. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, et al. Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet. J Gen Intern Med. Sep 2019;34(9):1884-1891. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0
14. 14. Akbulut ET. Analysis of Content, Readability, Reliability, and Quality of Turkish Websites on Oral Cancer. Adv Health Sports Technol Sci. 2024;1(1):28–34. doi:10.14744/ahsts.2024.62849
15. 15. Zirek T, Tassöker M. Ağız Kanserleri ile İlgili Bilgi Sunan Türkçe İnternet Sitelerinin Okunabilirliği ve İçerik Kalitesi: Metodolojik Çalışma. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental Sciences. 2024;30(3) doi: 10.5336/dentalsci.2023-100518
16. 16. Alseheimi AM, Alseheimi SM, Alhysoni KA. Quality Assessment of Online Health Information on Thyroid Cancer in the Arabic Language: A Cross-Sectional Study. Cureus. Dec 2024;16(12):e76526. doi:10.7759/cureus.76526
17. 17. McKearney TC, McKearney RM. The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. Jun 2013;77(6):894-7. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021
18. 18. Daines BS, Idicula W. Quality and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials Related to Branchial Cleft Cysts. Cureus. Apr 2022;14(4):e24287. doi:10.7759/cureus.24287
19. 19. Enver N, Doruk C, Kara H, et al. YouTube as an information source for larynx cancer: a systematic review of video content. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. Jul 2020;277(7):2061-2069. doi:10.1007/s00405-020-05906-y
20. 20. Narwani V, Nalamada K, Lee M, et al.Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to laryngeal cancer. Head Neck. Apr 2016;38(4):601-5. doi:10.1002/hed.23939