Abstract
BACKGROUND: The growing role of biologic therapies as adjunct or standalone procedures in orthopedic practice has led to greater levels of direct-to-consumer biologic marketing. The present study aims to assess the quality, accuracy, and readability of online educational resources available to patients regarding biologic therapies for shoulder pathology. METHODS: Eight search terms relevant to shoulder biologic therapies (shoulder + BMAC, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, PRP, Platelet Rich Plasma, Lipogems, Adipose Tissue, Biologic therapy, and Stem cell therapy) were searched across three separate search engines. The first 25 websites of each search were recorded. Duplicate websites and those not specific to shoulder pathology were excluded. Three evaluators independently assessed quality using an author-derived scoring rubric for a total of 25 possible points and accuracy for a total of 12 possible points. The Flesch-Kincaid readability test was used to quantify reading levels. Websites were further characterized by authorship and the presence of commercial bias. RESULTS: Of the 600 results from the initial search, 59 met inclusion criteria. The mean quality of the websites was poor, with 7.97 ± 2.3 of 25 points (32%). The mean accuracy was low, with 8.47 ± 1.52 of 12 points (71%). The average reading level was 11.2 ± 1.93, with 32% of websites' reading at greater than 12(th) grade reading level. The search terms of "shoulder PRP" and "shoulder Platelet Rich Plasma" yielded the highest quality results (mean = 8.14 ± 2.63). "shoulder Lipogems" and "shoulder Adipose tissue" yielded the most accurate results (mean = 9.25 ± 0.96). "shoulder BMAC" and "shoulder bone marrow aspirate concentrate" were most difficult to read (mean = 12.54 ± 3.73). Sixty-four percent of websites were authored by physicians, hospitals, or medical groups. The accuracy of websites authored by health care professionals was significantly higher than the accuracy of those authored by other industry sources (P = .01). Fifteen percent of websites demonstrated commercial bias. DISCUSSION: The online resources available to patients seeking information about biologic therapies for the treatment of shoulder pathologies are of very poor quality, moderately poor accuracy, and advanced readability. Providers should caution patients about the reliability of direct-to-consumer biologic marketing for shoulder pathology. CONCLUSION: The information available to patients online regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of shoulder pathology with biologic therapies is of poor quality and accuracy and difficult readability.