What patients ask: Evaluating google search queries and webpage transparency in common ophthalmologic malignancies

Objective/Purpose: To characterize the online information landscape for ocular malignancies by analyzing patient search queries and evaluating the transparency and readability of linked websites. Design: Cross-sectional infodemiologic analysis. Searches were conducted on June 12, 2025, using a private, location-masked web browser. Subjects, Participants, and/or Controls: A total of 300 Google “People Also Ask” (PAA) questions and 205 unique linked websites associated with three search terms: uveal melanoma, retinoblastoma, and ocular surface tumours (100 questions per term). Methods, Intervention, or Testing: Questions were categorized by type and topic using an adapted Rothwell classification. Websites were classified by source (e.g., commercial, government) and evaluated using the JAMA Benchmark Criteria (transparency) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE) and Coleman-Liau Index (readability). Results: Fact-based queries predominated (71 %). Search topics varied significantly by diagnosis: prognosis was the primary concern for uveal melanoma (17 %) and retinoblastoma (15 %), whereas technical details (24 %) dominated for ocular surface tumours. Commercial websites were the most visible source (44 %). Government sites achieved the highest transparency (mean JAMA Benchmark 3.30) yet were amongst the most difficult to read (FKRE 37.8). Conversely, commercial sites were more readable (FKRE 51.8) but less transparent (JAMA Benchmark 2.67). Academic sources performed surprisingly poorly on transparency (JAMA Benchmark 2.36). Overall, content complexity typically exceeded the recommended 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels for public health information. Conclusions: Patient information needs are tumor-specific, reflecting distinct clinical anxieties regarding survival versus function. A significant discordance exists in the current online landscape: highly transparent government resources are often too complex, while accessible commercial content lacks transparency. Clinicians must guide patients toward resources that balance accuracy with readability to ensure informed decision-making.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
AJO International
Published
2026-01-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoint.2026.100224
Primary Topic
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

What patients ask: Evaluating google search queries and webpage transparency in common ophthalmologic malignancies

Rachel Grace Curtis, Michael Balas, Siddharth Gandhi, Janmejay Buranpuri
AJO International
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
article

What patients ask: Evaluating google search queries and webpage transparency in common ophthalmologic malignancies

Rachel Grace Curtis, Michael Balas, Siddharth Gandhi, Janmejay Buranpuri
article en

Abstract

Objective/Purpose: To characterize the online information landscape for ocular malignancies by analyzing patient search queries and evaluating the transparency and readability of linked websites. Design: Cross-sectional infodemiologic analysis. Searches were conducted on June 12, 2025, using a private, location-masked web browser. Subjects, Participants, and/or Controls: A total of 300 Google “People Also Ask” (PAA) questions and 205 unique linked websites associated with three search terms: uveal melanoma, retinoblastoma, and ocular surface tumours (100 questions per term). Methods, Intervention, or Testing: Questions were categorized by type and topic using an adapted Rothwell classification. Websites were classified by source (e.g., commercial, government) and evaluated using the JAMA Benchmark Criteria (transparency) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE) and Coleman-Liau Index (readability). Results: Fact-based queries predominated (71 %). Search topics varied significantly by diagnosis: prognosis was the primary concern for uveal melanoma (17 %) and retinoblastoma (15 %), whereas technical details (24 %) dominated for ocular surface tumours. Commercial websites were the most visible source (44 %). Government sites achieved the highest transparency (mean JAMA Benchmark 3.30) yet were amongst the most difficult to read (FKRE 37.8). Conversely, commercial sites were more readable (FKRE 51.8) but less transparent (JAMA Benchmark 2.67). Academic sources performed surprisingly poorly on transparency (JAMA Benchmark 2.36). Overall, content complexity typically exceeded the recommended 6th- to 8th-grade reading levels for public health information. Conclusions: Patient information needs are tumor-specific, reflecting distinct clinical anxieties regarding survival versus function. A significant discordance exists in the current online landscape: highly transparent government resources are often too complex, while accessible commercial content lacks transparency. Clinicians must guide patients toward resources that balance accuracy with readability to ensure informed decision-making.

AJO InternationalVol. 3(1)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 99%
Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.