Quality and readability of online information on Keratoconus in Portugal and Brazil.

IntroductionKeratoconus patients turn to the internet for answers to their disease expectations. Webpages are not filtered or submitted to evaluation before getting published. We aim to evaluate the quality and readability of the online information regarding keratoconus in Portugal and Brazil.MethodsTwo independent ophthalmologists and one ophthalmologist supervisor evaluated 30 Portuguese and 30 Brazilian websites by order of appearance in Google with the word "Queratocone" and "Ceratocone", respectively. Two quality scores were used: a quality index of consumer health information (DISCERN) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark. Readability was evaluated with 3 scores: FleschKincaid Reading Ease (FRE), FleschKincaid Grade (FKG) and Automated Readability Index (ARI).ResultsSites from private hospitals or clinics were the most prevalent in both countries, followed by health platform sites. Final JAMA benchmark was 1.13 ± 1.18 in Portugal and 1.07 ± 1.00 in Brazil. Final DISCERN was 34.07 ± 11.71 in Portugal and 38.17 ± 10.51 in Brazil. FRE and FKG scores denoted "difficult to read" and "college school level" in both countries; ARI denoted "professor" level in Portugal and "college student" level in Brazil needed to understand the text, a statistically significant difference. There was no correlation between Google ranking and quality and readability scores.Discussion and ConclusionsThe information on keratoconus available online to Portuguese-speaking patients is of poor quality and difficult to interpret. Ophthalmologists have a shared responsibility to tackle this challenge through multifold efforts. Educating our patients on how to find reputable websites can help them navigate their life with keratoconus.