Skip to main content
PMC home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2020 May 28;48(7):661–665. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.05.004

Quality assessment of patient information on orthognathic surgery on the internet

Johannes Engelmann 1,∗, Carmen Fischer 1, Emeka Nkenke 1
PMCID: PMC7255739  PMID: 32518020

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online information for patients on orthognathic surgery.

Materials and methods

A selection of search terms specific for orthognathic surgery was chosen and 150 websites were identified using the Internet search engines Google, Yahoo and Bing. Irrelevant websites were excluded. The remaining websites were assessed with a modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. EQIP evaluates the quality of medical patient information by measuring the three key aspects of content, structure, and identification data.

Results

48 relevant websites were identified. EQIP values ranged between 2 and 28 (median 13.65). While 37 of the 48 websites described details of the surgical procedures, only 13 mentioned possible risks and complications of the surgery. No differences were found between the websites of private practices, dentists and public hospitals, universities, or others (p = 0.66). Websites found by Google had a significantly lower EQIP score compared with Yahoo and Bing (11.12 vs. 16.60 for Yahoo and 16.23 for Bing; p = 0.012). The better the rank of the website, the higher the EQIP score (r = −0.411, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

The results of this study reflected a large variation of quality of information on orthognathic surgery on the Internet. Therefore, surgeons must be aware that they might be confronted with unrealistic expectations of patients, who may underestimate the potential risks and drawbacks of orthognathic surgery.

Keywords: Orthognathic surgery, Oral, Patient information, Evaluation, Health information, EQIP

1. Introduction

With the world wide web now widely available, the Internet has become the first-choice source of information, with widespread and growing use of written online information, online videos, Internet discussion groups, and blogs. Increasingly, patients use the Internet to obtain answers to medical questions. According to a recent poll, more than 50% of people consult the Internet regularly to get information on health issues (Hambrock, 2018). It can be assumed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, this number is now significantly higher (Zimmermann and Nkenke, 2020).

Around 60% of the people gather knowledge on the Internet before or after they visit a medical specialist. Approximately 50% of these people believe that they understand the health information they have sourced and are able to rate the quality of the data. However, patients rating the quality and reliability of online information seems to be an arbitrary process. Patients tend to stick to information that confirms their preexisting opinions, prejudices, and fears. Information is preferred that supports aspects that patients have heard or read before (Hambrock, 2018).

On average, people remain on a website for only 69 s. This short interval of time affects their health literacy (Eysenbach et al., 2002). Health literacy is defined as an individual's ability to read, understand, and apply information to make rational health-care decisions and follow treatment instructions (Lee et al., 2019). Studies have shown that insufficient health literacy has an impact on patients' autonomy and ability to make sound decisions regarding their health. The consequence can be a poorer postoperative outcome (Menendez et al., 2017, Halleberg Nyman et al., 2018, Keim-Malpass et al., 2018).

Online health information sources are preferred especially by females, younger individuals, and people with a higher socio-economic status (Zschorlich et al., 2015, Hambrock, 2018). People with a limited scientific background almost always carry out Internet-based searches using one of the major search engines. The dominant leader is Google, with a market share exceeding 92% (Statcounter, 1999–2017).

When patients think about undergoing orthognathic surgery, it is most likely that they will use the Internet to collect additional information and to receive support and reassurance (Bhamrah et al., 2015). For the patients it is most important to gather high-quality information before surgery, because there is a clear correlation with patient satisfaction after surgery (Bailey et al., 1999, Kufta et al., 2016). Aside from online research and the individual's overall expectations, of course the information provided by the doctor during a personal consultation has an important influence on patient satisfaction (Al Kharafi et al., 2014). In order to fully understand patients' motivations and expectations concerning orthognathic surgery, doctors have to be familiar with the information offered on the Internet (Lee et al., 2019). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of websites on the Internet that provide information on orthognathic surgery.

2. Materials and Methods

An Internet search was performed in January 2019 using the three most commonly used search engines — Google, Yahoo, and Bing (Statcounter, 1999–2017). The search was performed by the authors J.E. and C.F. The German terms for orthognathic surgery, operation for mandibular and maxillary advancement and set-back, surgical correction of the jaw. and correction of malocclusion were used as search terms, because these were the most commonly used terms when patients filled in the medical questionnaires during consultation for orthognathic surgery.

In order to guarantee identical search results, the search was performed simultaneously on two personal computers using the same local network and after deleting the cache files. The search was conducted with the latest version of Google Chrome (v. 71.0.3578), because Google Chrome is the most commonly used Internet browser (Statcounter, 1999–2017).

The first 50 results on the search engine results page for each search engine were included in this study in order to achieve adequate statistical power (Aldairy et al., 2012, Karamitros and Kitsos, 2018). Websites not related to orthognathic surgery, duplicates, and websites in languages other than German were excluded. If a website was found by at least two of the three search engines, it was selected for further analysis. The website was attributed to the search engine where it reached the best rank on the search engine results page and was excluded from analysis for the remaining two search engines.

The two investigators assessed all websites separately, with any remaining conflicts being discussed and resolved by consensus.

Further analysis of the selected websites was performed with a modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (Charvet-Berard et al., 2008; Table 1 ).

Table 1.

Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool.

Item Criteria Yes No
1 Initial definition of which subjects will be covered 20 28
2 Coverage of the previously defined subjects 24 24
3 Description of the medical problem 27 21
4 Definition of the purpose of the surgical intervention 32 16
5 Description of treatment alternatives 5 43
6 Description of the sequence of the surgical procedure pre operation 31 17
7 Description of the sequence of the surgical procedure during operation 26 22
8 Description of the sequence of the surgical procedure post operation 28 20
9 Description of the qualitative benefits to the recipient 30 18
10 Description of the quantitative benefits to the recipient 1 47
11 Description of the qualitative risks and side effects 13 35
12 Description of the quantitative risks and side effects 5 43
13 Addressing quality-of-life issues 18 30
14 Description of how complications are handled 21 27
15 Description of the precautions that the patient may take 9 39
16 Mention of alert signs that the patient may detect 4 44
17 Addressing medical intervention costs and insurance issues 13 35
18 Specific contact details for hospital service 22 26
19 Specific details of other sources of reliable information/support 18 30
20 Date of issue or revision 13 35
21 Logo of the issuing body 43 5
22 Names of the persons or entities that produce the document 21 27
23 Names of the persons or entities that financed the document 2 46
24 Short bibliography of the evidence-based data used in the document 1 47
25 Statement about whether or how patients are involved/consulted in the document's production 9 39
26 Use of everyday language and explanation of complex words or jargon 22 26
27 Use of short sentence (<15 words on average) 16 32
28 Personal address to the reader 27 21
29 Respectful tone 41 7
30 Clear information (no ambiguities or contradictions) 34 14
31 Balanced information on risks and benefits 7 41
32 Presentation of information in a logical order 29 19
33 Satisfactory design and layout (excluding figures and graphs) 17 31
34 Clear and relevant figures and a graphs 11 37
35 Inclusion of an named space for the reader's note or questions 15 33
Open in a new tab

The item ‘coverage of all relevant issues for the topic’ was removed from the EQIP tool because none of the selected websites fulfilled this criterion. The items ‘use of generic names for all medications or products’ and ‘printed consent form contrary to recommendations’ were not relevant to the study and were also removed. Because of its high relevance for orthognathic surgery, the item ‘description of the sequence of the surgical procedure’ was subdivided into preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative procedures. The answer ‘partially yes’ has been identified previously as being unreliable and, therefore, was removed from the scoring system (Ademiluyi et al., 2003). All items answered with ‘yes’ were scored equally with 1 point and summed up at the end. A maximum of 35 points for the EQIP score was attainable.

For statistical analysis IBM® SPSS® Statistics v.25 was used. Descriptive statistics, Student's t-test, ANOVA and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) were performed. The level for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, with all tests two-sided.

3. Results

Out of the initially 150 identified websites, 55 were excluded due to duplicate retrievals and another 47 were excluded due to irrelevant content. The remaining 48 websites underwent further analysis (Fig. 1 ).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flow chart for the selection of websites.

Indications or reasons for the need for orthognathic surgery were given on 32 out of the 48 websites. Planning and sequencing of at least one surgical procedure were included on 37 websites. Risks or side effects were mentioned on only 13 websites. Links and sources for further information were offered on 18 websites. Examples of treated patients were given only on nine websites.

Out of the 48 websites, 22 were provided by private practices or dentists, 13 by public hospitals or universities, 10 by patient blogs, two by online encyclopedias, and one by an online newspaper. For further statistical analysis the latter three were pooled in one group as ‘other online information sources’. 42 websites had their origin in Germany, five websites in Austria, and one in the Czech Republic.

The median EQIP score was 13.65, with a standard deviation of 6.289. The lowest score in the survey was 2, and the maximum score was 28 (Fig. 2 ). The website with the highest EQIP score in our study was www.professor-lindorf.de. This was found by Bing at rank 31.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) score frequency. The median EQIP score was 13.65, with a standard deviation of 6.289. The lowest score in the survey was 2 and the maximum score was 28.

Relation to a private practice, hospital, blog, etc. was not correlated with the quality of the website. EQIP scores for the three groups ‘private practices’ (12.77 ± 7.45), ‘public hospitals or universities’ (14.69 ± 4.90), and ‘other online information sources’ (14.08 ± 5.56) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.66; Fig. 3 ).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

EQIP scores for private practices (12.7 ± 7.4), public hospitals or universities (14.6 ± 4.9), and other online information sources (14.0 ± 5.5); p = 0.66.

Differences in quality at the search engine level were found. Websites ranked higher on the search engine results page for Google showed a significantly lower mean EQIP score (11.12 ± 6.19) than those identified by Yahoo (16.60 ± 5.71) and Bing (16.23 ± 5.08; p = 0.012).

A significant correlation between the rank on a search engine results page and EQIP score was found. The better a website was ranked on a search engine results page, the higher was the EQIP score (r = −0.411, p = 0.004; Fig. 4 ). The negative sign refers to the fact that a better rank means a lower numeric value.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Correlation between EQIP score and ranking for the search engine results page (r = −0.411; p = 0.004).

4. Discussion

This study was the first one to assess online patient information relating to orthognathic surgery using a modified EQIP tool.

The EQIP tool is comparable to the British Medical Association patient information award appraisal form for some criteria, and includes the three key aspects: content, structure, and identification data. The EQIP tool has adequate interrater reliability (Charvet-Berard et al., 2008, Nicholls et al., 2009, Vaona et al., 2011, Melloul et al., 2012, Frueh et al., 2015, Haymes, 2016, Palma et al., 2016, Zuk et al., 2016, Zuk et al., 2017, Karamitros et al., 2017, Raptis et al., 2019). It is often preferred over the DISCERN tool because the latter focuses more on readability than on quality of information (Hargrave et al., 2006). Nevertheless, different working groups have tried to rate the quality of websites on orthognathic surgery based on readability, and therefore used the DISCERN scoring system (Aldairy et al., 2012, Lee et al., 2019). They found Wikipedia to be the source of highest quality, with DISCERN scores of 64 (Aldairy) and 63 (Lee). Interestingly, Wikipedia achieved an EQIP score of 13 in our study, placing it very close to the average score (13.6 ± 6.2). This result supports the assumption that DISCERN is more about readability than scientific evaluation of the content and the quality of information. As a consequence, there is the risk that the lay reader may attribute quality to a well-written web page and thus might be misled.

Previously, the EQIP tool has been applied for the evaluation of online information about the treatment of cleft lip and palate malformations (Karamitros et al., 2018). The mean EQIP score was 19.1 ± 5.4, which is higher than that found in our study for orthognathic surgery (13.6 ± 6.2). Considering the fact that a number of EQIP tool items were removed from the questionnaire because they had no relevance for our study, one might have expected us to find a higher EQIP score. It seems that the quality of online information on orthognathic surgery needs significant improvement before these websites can compete with those on the treatment of cleft lip and palate malformations.

The information provided on the different websites was correct from a medical point of view. However, most of the websites provided only basic information on orthognathic procedures before focusing on fixing an appointment for a face-to-face consultation. For every candidate for orthognathic surgery an individual treatment plan has to be put together depending on the anatomical situation, esthetic demands, and the surgeon's preferences (Thiele et al., 2016). Therefore, it is clearly difficult to set up a website that covers all aspects of orthognathic surgery comprehensively. We assume that a lack of in-depth information possibly led to the low mean EQIP score. Nevertheless, it was surprising to see that only a few websites included in the study described the most common operations, such as Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, and genioplasty, in detail. Obviously, adding this information would immediately increase the quality of the websites.

Patients who had undergone orthognathic surgery generally were satisfied and felt well informed (Al Kharafi et al., 2014). However, they considered information regarding surgical risks and functional limitations following surgery insufficient. Websites of public hospitals and universities were more likely to provide relevant information about the risks and disadvantages of different procedures in cleft lip and palate surgery compared with websites of private practices (Karamitros et al., 2018). However, our study found no significant differences between websites of public hospitals or universities and private practices. Indeed, the website of highest quality came from a private practice. Only 13 websites out of 48 provided information on possible risks or side-effects of orthognathic surgery, although according to the current literature complications occur in approximately 20% of patients (Zaroni et al., 2019).

Regarding search engines, this study can refute the hypothesis that ‘the bigger, the better’. Google has a market share of 92.4%, while Yahoo (2.1%) and Bing (2.4%) are comparatively minor companies (Statcounter, 1999–2017). Although Google was able to identify most of the relevant websites that were included in our study — n = 25 (52%) vs Yahoo with n = 13 (27%) and Bing with n = 10 (21%) — Google produced a significantly lower mean EQIP score. Unfortunately, the design of our study did not enable us to find explanations for why websites identified by Google were of reduced quality.

A limitation of our study was that the number of websites that underwent statistical analysis was low. There are different opinions on how many websites people visit on a search engine results page before they start a new search. Recent studies have shown that it is very unlikely that patients will open more than the first 20 websites on a search engine results page (Eysenbach and Kohler, 2002, Aldairy et al., 2012, Karamitros and Kitsos, 2018). Therefore, increasing the number of websites in this study might strengthen the statistical power, but would change the design of the study to a less realistic scenario. As a consequence, increasing the included websites was not taken into account.

5. Conclusions

This study showed a pronounced variation in the level of quality of the analyzed websites. Therefore, surgeons must be aware that they might be confronted with unrealistic expectations of patients, who may underestimate the potential risks and drawbacks of orthognathic surgery.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Declarations of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Center for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems (CEMSIIS) at the Medical University of Vienna for its support.

References

  1. Ademiluyi G., Rees C.E., Sheard C.E. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;50:151–155. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00124-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldairy T., Laverick S., McIntyre G.T. Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:466–469. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Al Kharafi L., AlHajery D., Andersson L. Orthognathic surgery: pretreatment information and patient satisfaction. Med Princ Pract. 2014;23:218–224. doi: 10.1159/000360735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailey L.J., Proffit W.R., White R., Jr. Assessment of patients for orthognathic surgery. Semin Orthod. 1999;5:209–222. doi: 10.1016/s1073-8746(99)80015-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhamrah G., Ahmad S., NiMhurchadha S. Internet discussion forums, an information and support resource for orthognathic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.08.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Charvet-Berard A.I., Chopard P., Perneger T.V. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Pat Educ Couns. 2008;70:407–411. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eysenbach G., Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. Br Med J. 2002;324:573–577. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Frueh F.S., Palma A.F., Raptis D.A., Graf C.P., Giovanoli P., Calcagni M. Carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis of online patient information with the EQIP tool. Chir Main. 2015;34:113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.main.2015.04.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Halleberg Nyman M., Nilsson U., Dahlberg K., Jaensson M. Association between functional health literacy and postoperative recovery, health care contacts, and health-related quality of life among patients undergoing day surgery: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:738–745. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0672. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hambrock U. Die Suche nach Gesundheitsinformationen – patientenperspektiven und Marktüberblick. Bertelsmann Stiftung. 2018;9–53 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hargrave D.R., Hargrave U.A., Bouffet E. Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol. 2006;8:175–182. doi: 10.1215/15228517-2005-008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Haymes A.T. The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the Internet. Ann Plast Surg. 2016;76:143–149. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Karamitros G.A., Kitsos N.A. Clefts of the lip and palate: is the Internet a trustworthy source of information for patients? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1114–1120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2018.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Karamitros G.A., Kitsos N.A., Sapountzis S. Systematic review of quality of patient information on phalloplasty in the Internet. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017;41:1426–1434. doi: 10.1007/s00266-017-0937-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Keim-Malpass J., Doede A., Camacho F., Kennedy C., Showalter S.L. Impact of patient health literacy on surgical treatment of breast cancer. Breast J. 2018;24:633–636. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kufta K., Peacock Z.S., Chuang S.K., Inverso G., Levin L.M. Components of patient satisfaction after orthognathic surgery. J Craniofac Surg. 2016;27:e102–e105. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000002318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee K.C., Berg E.T., Jazayeri H.E., Chuang S.K., Eisig S.B. Online patient education materials for orthognathic surgery fail to meet readability and quality standards. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77 doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.033. 180; e181–180; e188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Melloul E., Raptis D.A., Oberkofler C.E., Dutkowski P., Lesurtel M., Clavien P.A. Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found? Liver Transpl. 2012;18:892–900. doi: 10.1002/lt.23442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Menendez M.E., van Hoorn B.T., Mackert M., Donovan E.E., Chen N.C., Ring D. Patients with limited health literacy ask fewer questions during office visits with hand surgeons. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:1291–1297. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-5140-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicholls S., Hankins M., Hooley C., Smith H. A survey of the quality and accuracy of information leaflets about skin cancer and sun-protective behaviour available from UK general practices and community pharmacies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venerol. 2009;23:566–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2008.03017.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Palma A.F., Zuk G., Raptis D.A., Franck S., Eylert G., Frueh F.S., Guggenheim M., Shafighi M. Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2016;50:262–271. doi: 10.3109/2000656X.2016.1154469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Raptis D.A., Sinanyan M., Ghani S., Soggiu F., Gilliland J.J., Imber C. Quality assessment of patient information on the management of gallstone disease in the Internet – a systematic analysis using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool. HPB. 2019;21(12):1632–1640. doi: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.03.355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Statcounter: Search Engine Market Share Worldwide. Statcounter 1999-2017, from https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share, https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share; Accessed 25 May 2019.
  24. Thiele O.C., Kreppel M., Bittermann G., Bonitz L., Desmedt M., Dittes C., Dorre A., Dunsche A., Eckert A.W., Ehrenfeld M., Fleiner B., Frerich B., Gaggl A., Gerressen M., Gmelin L., Hammacher A., Hassfeld S., Heiland M., Hemprich A., Hidding J., Holzle F., Howaldt H.P., Iizuka T., Kater W., Klein C., Klein M., Kohnke R.H., Kolk A., Kubler A.C., Kubler N.R., Kunkel M., Kuttenberger J.J., Kreusch T., Landes C., Lehner B., Mischkowski R.A., Mokros S., Neff A., Nkenke E., Palm F., Paulus G.W., Piesold J.U., Rasse M., Rodemer H., Rothamel D., Rustemeyer J., Sader R., Scheer M., Scheffler B., Schippers C., Schliephake H., Schmelzeisen R., Schramm A., Spitzer W.J., Stoll C., Terheyden H., Weingart D., Wiltfang J., Wolff K.D., Ziegler C.M., Zoller J.E. Moving the mandible in orthognathic surgery – a multicenter analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44:579–583. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2016.01.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Vaona A., Marcon A., Rava M., Buzzetti R., Sartori M., Abbinante C., Moser A., Seddaiu A., Prontera M., Quaglio A., Pallazzoni P., Sartori V., Rigon G. Quality evaluation of JAMA patient pages on diabetes using the ensuring quality information for patient (EQIP) tool. Prim Care Diabetes. 2011;5:257–263. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2011.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Zaroni F.M., Cavalcante R.C., Joao da Costa D., Kluppel L.E., Scariot R., Rebellato N.L.B. Complications associated with orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study of 485 cases. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2019;47:1855–1860. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2019.11.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Zimmermann M., Nkenke E. Approaches to the management of patients in oral and maxillofacial surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2020.03.011. (in press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zschorlich B., Gechter D., Janssen I.M., Swinehart T., Wiegard B., Koch K. Health information on the Internet: who is searching for what, when and how? Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2015;109:144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Zuk G., Palma A.F., Eylert G., Raptis D.A., Guggenheim M., Shafighi M. Systematic review of quality of patient information on liposuction in the Internet. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e759. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Zuk G., Reinisch K.B., Raptis D.A., Fertsch S., Guggenheim M., Palma A.F. Dupuytren disease: is there enough comprehensive patient information on the Internet? Interact J Med Res. 2017;6:e7. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.7822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES