Evaluating Clarity and Quality of Sinus Augmentation Information Online

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluates the transparency, information quality, and readability of English-language websites concerning maxillary sinus augmentation, aiming to distinguish between clinical and blog-type websites. The findings underscore the importance of improving online health information to support informed decision-making and enhance health literacy. Materials and Methods: In August 2024, an internet search was conducted using Google Chrome along with Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex search engines, employing specific keywords related to maxillary sinus augmentation. Websites were independently evaluated by two observers using established tools, including the JAMA benchmarks, DISCERN, QUEST, and EQIP, to assess transparency, information quality, and adherence to evidence-based practices. Readability was assessed using the Flesch–Kincaid tests, Gunning-Fog Index, SMOG, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. Statistical comparisons were performed using non-parametric tests. Results: Among the 137 websites analyzed, 21.89% to 24.08% achieved scores above the 75th percentile for transparency and information quality, as evaluated by JAMA, DISCERN, QUEST, and EQIP tools. Blog-like websites scored significantly higher than clinical websites across all assessment tools (p<0.05), indicating better transparency and content quality. However, blog-like sites also required a higher educational level for comprehension compared to clinical websites (p<0.05), which may limit accessibility for some readers. Conclusion: Individuals searching for information on sinus augmentation surgery have roughly a one-in-four or one-in-five chance of finding websites that adhere to acceptable standards of content quality and transparency. While blog-type websites provide superior content quality and transparency, they often require higher literacy levels, potentially excluding a portion of the population. These findings call for the development of standardized guidelines to ensure that online health information is both high-quality and accessible, ultimately improving patient education, health literacy, and decision-making.

Keywords

• Sinus Floor Augmentation
• Information Seeking Behavior
• health information systems
• internet-based intervention
• attitude to health

References

1. Stern A, Green J. Sinus lift procedures: an overview of cur- rent techniques. Dent Clin North Am. 2012;56(1):219–33, x. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2011.09.003.
2. 2. Bagis N, Yıldız H, Barbaros R. Maxillary Sinus Lifting. Inter- national Journal of Experimental Dental Science. 2018;7:91–97. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1181.
3. 3. Tiwana PS, Kushner GM, Haug RH. Maxillary sinus aug- mentation. Dent Clin North Am. 2006;50(3):409–424, vii. doi:10.1016/j.cden.2006.03.004.
4. 4. Molina A, Sanz-Sanchez I, Sanz-Martin I, Ortiz-Vigon A, Sanz M. Complications in sinus lifting procedures: Classifica- tion and management. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88(1):103–115. doi:10.1111/prd.12414.
5. 5. Battineni G, Baldoni S, Chintalapudi N, Sagaro GG, Pal- lotta G, Nittari G, et al. Factors affecting the quality and reliability of online health information. Digit Health. 2020;6:2055207620948996. doi:10.1177/2055207620948996.
6. 6. Sharkiya SH. Quality communication can improve patient- centred health outcomes among older patients: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):886. doi:10.1186/s12913-023- 09869-8.
7. 7. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake KD, Greenberg-Worisek AJ, Allen SV, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Online Health Information Seeking Among US Adults: Measuring Progress Toward a Healthy Peo- ple 2020 Objective. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(6):617–625. doi:10.1177/0033354919874074.
8. 8. Jia X, Pang Y, Liu LS. Online Health Information Seeking Be- havior: A Systematic Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(12). doi:10.3390/healthcare9121740.

9. 9. Wang X, Cohen R. Health Information Technology Use Among Adults: United States, July-December 2022. NCHS. 2023;482:8. doi:10.15620/cdc:133700.
10. 10. Okuhara T, Furukawa E, Okada H, Kiuchi T. Readability of online and offline written health information: a proto- col of a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open. 2024;14(12):e079756. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079756.
11. 11. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical stud- ies assessing the quality of health information for con- sumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691–2700. doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.
12. 12. Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, 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. 2019;34(9):1884–1891. doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0.
13. 13. Decker AM, Stuhr S, Testori T, Wang HL. Clinical and radio- graphic changes following transcrestal sinus augmentation: A scoping review of the last 25 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2024;26(6):1338–1353. doi:10.1111/cid.13389.
14. 14. Alpaydin MT, Alpaydin T, Koklu M, Buyuk SK. Qual- ity assessment of available Internet information on early orthodontic treatment. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):351. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04019-w.
15. 15. Qurban HA, Alturki S K N, Alharbi NM, Alerwi AH, Alharbi RJ, Alassaf MS. Assessment of Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Root Canal Treatment: An Infodemiologic Study. Cureus. 2024;16(5):e59794. doi:10.7759/cureus.59794.
16. 16. Yoo SR, Yoo JH, Kim BS, Kim BC. Assessment of the Quality of Si- nus Elevation with Lateral Window Approach Procedure Videos on YouTube: A Content-quality Analysis. J Craniofac Surg. 2024;35(4):1138–1142. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000010169.
17. 17. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, control- ling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–1245.
18. 18. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–111. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105.
19. 19. Robillard JM, Jun JH, Lai JA, Feng TL. The QUEST for quality on- line health information: validation of a short quantitative tool. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):87. doi:10.1186/s12911- 018-0668-9.
20. 20. Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care infor- mation. Health Expect. 2004;7(2):165–75. doi:10.1111/j.1369- 7625.2004.00273.x.
21. 21. Weil AG, Bojanowski MW, Jamart J, Gustin T, Leveque M. Eval- uation of the quality of information on the Internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1-2):e31–39. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2012.11.003.
22. 22. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221–233. doi:10.1037/h0057532.
23. 23. Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula de- signed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975;60(2):283–284. doi:10.1037/h0076540.
24. 24. Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure. Adv Prev Med. 2017;2017:9780317. doi:10.1155/2017/9780317.
25. 25. van Ballegooie C, Hoang P. Assessment of the Readabil- ity of Online Patient Education Material from Major Geri- atric Associations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(4):1051–1056. doi:10.1111/jgs.16960.
26. 26. Cohen J. Set Correlation and Contingency Tables. Ap- plied Psychological Measurement. 1988;12(4):425–434. doi:10.1177/014662168801200410.
27. 27. Raja SV. Management of the posterior maxilla with sinus lift: review of techniques. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(8):1730– 1734. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.042.
28. 28. Chu JT, Wang MP, Shen C, Viswanath K, Lam TH, Chan SSC. How, When and Why People Seek Health Information On- line: Qualitative Study in Hong Kong. Interact J Med Res. 2017;6(2):e24. doi:10.2196/ijmr.7000.
29. 29. Wang J, Sun X, Lv H, Du L, Wang L, Zhou Y. Endoscope-Assisted Maxillary Sinus Floor Elevation with Platelet-Rich Fibrin Graft- ing and Simultaneous Implant Placement: A Prospective Clin- ical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36(1):137–145. doi:10.11607/jomi.8723.
30. 30. Urman A, Makhortykh M. You are how (and where) you search? Comparative analysis of web search behavior using web track- ing data. J Comput Soc Sci. 2023;6(2):1–16. doi:10.1007/s42001- 023-00208-9.
31. 31. Ferlias N, Smith K, Straarup A, Travancic L, Kristensen KD, Stoustrup P. Quality assessment of online infor- mation on orthodontic Web sites in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023;163(6):843–850. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.09.012.
32. 32. Goller Bulut D, Paksoy T, Ustaoglu G. Is Online Video a Suit- able Source to Obtain Sufficient and Useful Information About Peri-Implantitis? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023;81(1):56–64. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2022.10.001.
33. 33. Meade MJ, Jensen S, Ju X, Hunter D, Jamieson L. Assess- ment of the quality and accuracy of information contained within the websites of marketed orthodontic products: a cross- sectional investigation. Angle Orthod. 2024;94(3):273–279. doi:10.2319/100423-672.1.
34. 34. Meade MJ, Dreyer CW. Ectopic and impacted maxillary ca- nines: A quality evaluation of online information. J Orthod. 2022;49(4):420–425. doi:10.1177/14653125221109281.
35. 35. Engelmann J, Fischer C, Nkenke E. Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020;48(7):661–665. doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2020.05.004.
36. 36. Lee KC, Berg ET, Jazayeri HE, Chuang SK, Eisig SB. Online Patient Education Materials for Orthognathic Surgery Fail to Meet Readability and Quality Standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77(1):180 e1–180 e8. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.033.
37. 37. Leira Y, Castelo-Baz P, Perez-Sayans M, Blanco J, Lorenzo- Pouso AI. Available patient-centered Internet information on peri-implantitis. Can our patients understand it? Clin Oral In- vestig. 2019;23(4):1569–1574. doi:10.1007/s00784-018-2583-y.
38. 38. Rehman I, Elmahgoub F, Goodall C. Evaluation of the informa- tion provided by UK dental practice websites regarding com- plications of dental implants. Br Dent J. 2021;230(12):831–834. doi:10.1038/s41415-021-3080-2.
39. 39. Ngo MK, Kee NLY, Jensen ED, Meade MJ. A scoping review of website-based orthognathic surgery information. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology. 2025. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2024.12.022.
40. 40. Yuan S, John D, Shambhunath S, Humphris G. A scoping re- view to explore patient trust in dentistry: the definition, as- sessment and dental professionals’ perception. Br Dent J. 2023. doi:10.1038/s41415-023-5882-x.
41. 41. Johnston JS, Skinner NA, Tokar A, Arabi E, Ndiaye NY, Strehlow MC, et al. Global Use, Adaptation, and Sharing of Massive Open Online Courses for Emergency Health on the OpenWHO Platform: Survey Study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e52591. doi:10.2196/52591.
42. 42. Twersky SE, Jefferson R, Garcia-Ortiz L, Williams E, Pina C. The Impact of Limited English Proficiency on Healthcare Access and Outcomes in the U.S.: A Scoping Review. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(3):364. doi:10.3390/healthcare12030364.
43. 43. Association AM, Schwartzberg J. Health Literacy Help Your Patients Understand [Electronic Book]. Ameri- can Medical Association Press; 2003. Available from: https://books.google.com/books/about/Health_Literacy_ Help_Your_Patients_Under.html?hl=&id=qinZMQEACAAJ.
44. 44. Schwarzbach HL, Mady LJ, Kaffenberger TM, Duvvuri U, Jab- bour N. Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer. Laryngo- scope. 2021;131(1):87–94. doi:10.1002/lary.28670.
45. 45. Jo JH, Kim JR, Kim MJ, Chung JW, Park JW. Quality and read- ability of online information on dental treatment for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. Int J Med Inform. 2020;133:104000. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.104000.
46. 46. Patel U, Cobourne MT. Orthodontic extractions and the In- ternet: quality of online information available to the pub- lic. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139(2):e103–9. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.019.
47. 47. Baqraf YKA, Keikhosrokiani P, Al-Rawashdeh M. Evaluating online health information quality using machine learning and deep learning: A systematic literature review. Digit Health. Sinus lifting and website evaluation | 33 2023;9:20552076231212296. doi:10.1177/20552076231212296.
48. 48. Abreu AA, Murimwa GZ, Farah E, Stewart JW, Zhang L, Ro- driguez J, et al. Enhancing Readability of Online Patient-Facing Content: The Role of AI Chatbots in Improving Cancer In- formation Accessibility. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2024;22(2 D):e237334. doi:10.6004/jnccn.2023.7334.
49. 49. Golan R, Ripps SJ, Reddy R, Loloi J, Bernstein AP, Connelly ZM, et al. ChatGPT’s Ability to Assess Quality and Readability of Online Medical Information: Evidence From a Cross-Sectional Study. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e42214. doi:10.7759/cureus.42214.
50. 50. Ziakis C, Vlachopoulou M. Artificial Intelligence’s Revolution- ary Role in Search Engine Optimization. In: Strategic Inno- vative Marketing and Tourism. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2024. p. 391–399.