Quality of healthcare information on the Internet: the case of Apicectomies

Background Patients often have misconceptions about the appropriateness of an Apiceptomy, partly due to poor quality information on the Internet. Clinical consequences include a patient's false expectations of preserving a tooth that is of a poor prognosis or conversely the loss of a tooth that had the potential to be saved. Aim To assess the quality of information available for patients on Apicectomy. Materials and methods We conducted a quality assessment of online information relating to Apicectomies using the DISCERN instrument. Results Fifteen websites met the inclusion criteria, of which one had ‘good’ quality, seven were of ‘fair’ quality, and seven had ‘poor’ quality. Furthermore, no websites were of ‘excellent’ or ‘very poor’ quality. Conclusions Our results are in line with the literature demonstrating poor quality online health information. Furthermore, we find that websites authored by dentists do not have a superior quality to those with unspecified authors. We propose that practitioners can adopt a proactive role. For example, Wikipedia was the first search result, yet was of ‘poor quality’. Due to Wikipedia being a user‐generated website, practitioners can revise its content to enhance the quality of information. Such action may lead to better‐informed patients, more dynamic doctor–patient relationship, and reduction in the gap between the expectations of patients and realities of Apicectomy outcomes.