Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess content, readability, and accountability of online information for patients regarding epiretinal membranes (ERMs). METHODS: Cross-sectional study evaluating nine major medical websites on ERMs. Fifteen questions assessed patient-relevant content. Four indices estimated U.S. grade literacy level of the text. JAMA benchmarks (authorship, attribution, disclosure, currency) evaluated website accountability. RESULTS: Average content score was 36.78 (SD 13.91, 95% CI ±0.64) from a possible maximum of 60, with significant variability between websites (H = 22.68, p=0.004). Mean reading grade level was 12.29 (SD 2.30, 95% CI ±1.50). No website achieved all JAMA benchmarks; only one website fulfilled three of the four. Content score did not correlate with Google rank (order of listed websites, r = -0.23, p=0.55) or JAMA benchmarks (r = 0.19, p=0.62) but significantly correlated with mean reading grade (r = 0.67, p=0.05). CONCLUSION: Online information regarding ERMs varies significantly, may not adequately answer common patient questions, and is written at too complex a literacy level for the average patient.