Appraisal of online health information on intravenous iron: Are patients well‐informed?

This study aimed to evaluate the quality, content, and readability of top-listed websites on intravenous (IV) iron. We conducted online searches for the term "iron infusion" using Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The search term was determined based on Google Trends data for March 2025. Five gynecologists independently reviewed the websites using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and Abbott's Scale. Credibility and readability were further assessed using the Health on the Net (HON) Foundation Code of Conduct Certification, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Flesch-Kincaid Read Ease formula (FRES). A total of 25 websites were included. The mean DISCERN score was moderate (2.9 ± 0.9 out of 5), with only three websites (12%) providing excellent quality information. Seven (28%) websites were classified as having poor to very poor quality information. The mean JAMA score was low (2.1 ± 1.3 out of 4), and only three websites (12%) met all benchmarks. The overall content score on Abbott's scale was low (45.4 ± 16.1 out of 106). The average authorship score (2.1 ± 1.2 out of 3) and esthetics rating (5.4 ± 1.2 out of 10) were moderate. Notably, 21 (84%) websites were not certified by the HONcode. Readability levels were poor, as reflected by the FRES (38.1 ± 16.9 out of 100), the FKGL (equivalent grade, 12.4 ± 2.8), and the SMOG (equivalent grade, 12.7 ± 2.4). Although information on IV iron is widely available online, its overall quality and content are generally poor and not easily accessible to the public. This underscores the opportunity for knowledge translation efforts aimed at developing online resources that are both accurate and understandable.