Rotator cuff repair: what questions are patients asking online and where are they getting their answers?

Abstract

Background: This study analyzed questions entered online by rotator cuff patients and determined types and quality of websites providing information at the top of queries. Methods: Three strings related to rotator cuff repair were explored in Google Search. The result pages were manually collected under the “People also ask” function for frequent questions and associated webpages. Questions were categorized using Rothwell’s classification with further topical subcategorization. Webpages were evaluated by Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria for source quality. Results: One hundred twenty “People also ask” questions were collected with their associated webpages. Based on the Rothwell classification of questions, queries were thematically organized into fact (41.7%), value (31.7%), and policy (26.7%) categories. The most common webpage categories were academic (28.3%) and medical practice (27.5%). The most common question subcategories were timeline of recovery (21.7%), indications/management (21.7%), and pain (18.3%). The average JAMA score for all 120 webpages was 1.50. Journal articles had the highest average JAMA score (3.77), while commercial websites had the lowest JAMA score (0.91). The most common suggested question for rotator cuff repair/surgery was, “Is rotator cuff surgery worth having?,” while the most common suggested question for rotator cuff repair pain was, “What happens if a rotator cuff is not repaired?” Conclusions: The most common questions asked on Google pertaining to rotator cuff repair evaluate management options and relate to the timeline of recovery and pain management. Most information is provided by medical practice, academic, and medical information websites, which have highly variable reliability. By understanding the questions that rotator cuff repair patients are asking online, surgeons can tailor preoperative education to common patient concerns and improve postoperative outcomes.Level of evidence: IV.