Assessing the Readability of Online Health Information for Colonoscopy - Analysis of Articles in 22 European Languages.

Patients often search on the Internet information about different medical conditions and procedures. This study aimed to evaluate online health information on colonoscopy, focusing on quantity and comprehensibility of internet resources dedicated to the colonoscopy. This information could be used by European Union (EU) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening providers to address patient's unfilled educational needs, fear of colonoscopy, and other barriers that deter from CRC screening. The term "colonoscopy" translated into 22 official EU languages was searched using the Google search engine. For each translation, generated list of websites was assessed with Google Translate. The first 50 websites in each language were assessed for suitability. Records in other languages were excluded. Included websites were free, focused on patient education, and did not have password. Readability assessments were performed with Lix score. A total of 588 websites in Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, and Swedish were evaluated. The overall mean Lix score was 56 ± 8 and was classified as very hard to comprehend. There were significant differences in mean Lix scores across the included languages (P<.001). There was not significant correlation (R2 = 0.1, P = 0.142) between Lix score and number of search hits. Although there was a wealth of online patient information on colonoscopy, the comprehensibility of the available information is low. Physician guidance to reliable resources could increase patient's willingness to undergo a screening colonoscopy.

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts.

INTRODUCTION: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals. METHODS: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author's specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor's demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.