Assessment of internet-based information on statin therapy.

AIMS: The use of statin therapy is deemed to be controversial by mainstream media. Patients increasingly source medical information from the internet, and the use of statins is no exception. This study aims to determine the quality and educational content of statin-focused information on the internet and YouTube. METHODS AND RESULTS: 'Statin' was searched on Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and YouTube. The first 50 results obtained from each search engine and the first 20 YouTube videos were screened by two assessors. Websites were assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, University of Michigan Consumer Health Website Evaluation Checklist, and a customized scoring system evaluating statin-focused content for quality. Videos were scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, Global Quality Score (GQS), and the customized scoring system. Websites scored a median FRE score of 57.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 52.1-62.3], median Michigan score of 36 (IQR 32-41.5), and median content score of 5 (IQR 3.75-7). Good interobserver agreement was demonstrated [Michigan score interobserver coefficient correlation (ICC) = 0.968; content score ICC = 0.944]. Videos scored a median JAMA score of 2, median GQS score of 2.5, and median content score of 2.5. Good interobserver agreement was demonstrated (JAMA ICC = 0.746; GQS ICC = 0.874; content score ICC = 0.946). CONCLUSION: Quality and readability of statin-focused online information are poor. Healthcare professionals should be aware of the limitations of the current available sources and design online resources that are accurate and patient-friendly.

Assessment of Available Online Website and YouTube Resources for Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, patients have displayed a greater tendency to search for online information related to their health before seeking advice from a clinician. This study aims to determine the current quality and educational content of online patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: In March 2022, the 3 most popular search engines by market shares (Google, Yahoo!, and Bing) and the video platform YouTube were interrogated for the term "abdominal aortic aneurysm". Validated scoring tools were used to assess quality and readability of the top 50 results for each search engine and to evaluate reliability and educational quality of the first 20 YouTube videos returned by the search. A custom-made scoring system was used to assess content. RESULTS: Forty-five unique websites were analysed, 29% of which held Health on the Net certification. Median Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (interquartile range [IQR]) was 56.4 (50.4-62.75), with the average website falling under the "difficult to read" category. Median Michigan score (IQR) was 38.5 (32-43.5), reflecting "weak" quality. Websites with a higher content-specific score had a significantly higher median Michigan score. Sixty percent of websites discussed benefits and risks related to AAA treatment, and only 31% discussed advantages and disadvantages of open versus endovascular treatment. No websites mentioned the volume-outcome relationship in aneurysm surgery. Eight unique YouTube videos were assessed. Median Journal of the American Medical Association score (IQR) was 2 (2-2.25). Median Global Quality Score score (IQR) was 3 (2-4). Median content score was 1 (0-2). CONCLUSIONS: The current average online information on AAA is of 'weak' quality and 'difficult' (i.e., above the standard reading ability of a 13- to 15-year-old) readability. Healthcare providers should focus on the provision of better AAA-focused patient information (e.g., appropriately referenced, regularly reviewed, and limiting advertisements where possible). The involvement of patient advisory groups during resource development is highly recommended.

Outcomes and complications following flexible intramedullary nailing for the treatment of tibial fractures in children: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Tibial shaft fractures are common occurrence in children and surgical treatment is sometimes required, particularly in unstable or open fractures, and in polytrauma. The aim of this study was to investigate the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of flexible intramedullary nailing (FIN) for both open and closed tibia fractures in children, exploring the main surgical outcomes and rate of complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pubmed/Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Central databases were searched following the PRISMA guideline. Studies reporting on the outcomes of FIN for paediatric tibia shaft fractures were included. Weighted means were evaluated for surgical outcomes. Meta-analysis of proportion and odd ratios were used to analyse total complication rates and differences between open and closed fractures. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (835 patients) were included; the mean age was 11.0 ± 3.0 years. The mean follow-up was 22.5 ± 13.5 months; the mean time to full weight-bearing was 7.5 ± 3.7 weeks. The total complication rate was 28.1% (minor = 20.7%, major = 6.3%); this was greater in open fractures (13.6% vs 5.1%, p = 0.007). The rate of union was 97.5%, with a mean time to union of 11.9 ± 7.2 weeks. Malunion was found in 8.5% cases, delayed union in 3.8%, non-union in 1.4%, symptomatic hardware in 5.1%, leg-length discrepancy in 5.0%, superficial infections in 2.3%, deep infections in 1.0%, compartment syndromes in 1.4%, and refracture in 0.2%. Almost all patients returned to unrestricted physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: FIN offers excellent outcomes for the treatment of paediatric tibia shaft fractures. Patients presenting with an open fracture have a higher but acceptable complication rate. Comparative studies are needed to clarify if other treatments have superior outcomes.

Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients: a single-centre analysis of clinical outcomes and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including the perceived health-related quality of life, in patients younger than 65 years having undergone aortic valve replacement either with biological or mechanical valve prostheses. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2013, 242 consecutive patients <65 years of age underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution, either with biological (n = 134, 55.4%) or mechanical (n = 108, 44.6%) prostheses. Survival, health-related quality of life, short- and long-term clinical outcomes and echocardiographic data were analysed with a retrospective, single-centre study. Propensity matching was performed. RESULTS: No significant difference in survival was found between the 2 groups (mechanical versus biological: 100% vs 96.6% at 1 year, 98.2% vs 93.1% at 5 years and 92.3% vs 83.4% at 10 years after surgery, P = 0.091). For all the interviewed patients (n = 161, 66.5%), perceived quality of life at the latest follow-up was excellent. Need for reoperation was higher in the bioprosthetic group (8% vs 0%, P = 0.995), whereas the rate of major bleedings was higher in the mechanical valve group (3% vs 20%, P = 0.094). The mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were 20.5 ± 9.7 and 37.4 ± 17.5 mmHg in the biological group and 14.8 ± 4.8 and 26.6 ± 9.2 mmHg in the mechanical group (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between biological and mechanical valves in terms of patients' survival, clinical outcomes and quality of life. Mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly higher in the biological group. The majority of patients would opt for the same prosthesis type, if asked to choose again.