Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (Asia Pacific)

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 2 ( April-June, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Quality and Reliability of Online Resources on Lisfranc Injuries

Yasser Aljabi, Arpit B Patel, Pinak Ray

Keywords : HONcode, Lisfranc injuries, Lisfranc injury, Online resources, Orthopaedics, Patient education

Citation Information : Aljabi Y, Patel AB, Ray P. Quality and Reliability of Online Resources on Lisfranc Injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg Asia-Pacific 2023; 10 (2):88-91.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10040-1219

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Introduction: There is an abundance of information available online on Lisfranc injuries; however, the quality and reliability of available information remains to be unclear. To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluates the quality of information available online on Lisfranc injuries. Methods: Seventy websites were identified for assessment using the term “Lisfranc injury.” Google, Yahoo! and Bing were the search engines employed. Websites were classified by type and assessed by means of DISCERN score, Journal of the Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the presence or absence of HONcode certification. Results: Majority of resources were academic (n = 23) followed by commercial (n = 18). Mean DISCERN and JAMA score was 47.4 and 2.2, respectively. A total of 21 websites had a HONcode certification present. Websites that bore the HONcode were associated with higher mean DISCERN and JAMA scores (p = 0.01). Conclusion: The authors of this study conclude that it is challenging to predict with certainty which resources are of superior quality. Clinicians must educate patients on quality of information available in order to help them make informed decisions.

  1. Myerson MS, Cerrato R. Current management of tarsometatarsal injuries in the athlete. Instr Course Lect 2009;58:583–594.
  2. Desmond EA, Chou LB. Current concepts review: Lisfranc injuries. Foot Ankle Int 2006;27(8):653–660. DOI: 10.1177/107110070602700819
  3. Benirschke SK, Meinberg E, Anderson SA, et al. Fractures and dislocations of the midfoot: Lisfranc and Chopart injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94(14):1325–1337. DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.l00413
  4. Miller LMS, Bell RA. Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. J Aging Health 2012; 24(3):525–541. DOI: 10.1177/0898264311428167
  5. Search engine market share. Available from: Accessed June 1st, 2020.
  6. Nassiri M, Bruce-Brand RA, O'Neill F, et al. Perthes Disease: the quality and reliability of information on the internet. J Pediatr Orthop 2015;35(5):530–535. DOI: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000312
  7. Bruce-Brand RA, Baker JF, Byrne DP, et al. Assessment of the quality and content of information on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on the internet. Arthroscopy 2013;29(6):1095–1100. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.02.007
  8. Elhassan Y, Sheridan G, Nassiri M, et al. Discectomy-related information on the internet: does the quality follow the surge? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40(2):121–125. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000689
  9. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, et al. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53(2):105–111. DOI: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105
  10. The HONcode of conduct for medical and health web sites (HONcode). Available from [cited 2020st].
  11. Magill HHP, Hajibandeh S, Bennett J, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis for the treatment of acute Lisfranc injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg 2019;58(2):328–332. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2018.08.061
  12. Smith N, Stone C, Furey A. Does open reduction and internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis improve patient outcomes for Lisfranc trauma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474(6):1445–1452. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4366-y
  13. Shakked R. Lisfranc injury in the athlete. JBJS Rev 2017;5(9):e4. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00025
  14. Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ. Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med 2010;362(9):859–860. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc0909595
  15. Fox S. Highlights of the Pew Internet Project's research related to health and health care. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Available at:
  16. Van der Marel S, Duijvestein M, Hardwick JC, et al. Quality of web-based information on inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2009;15(12):1891–1896. DOI: 10.1002/ibd.20976
  17. Devitt BM, Hartwig T, Klemm H, et al. Comparison of the source and quality of information on the internet between anterolateral ligament reconstruction and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an Australian experience. Orthop J Sports Med 2017;5(12):2325967117741887. DOI: 10.1177/2325967117741887
  18. Kakos AB, Lovejoy DA, Whiteside JL. Quality of information on pelvic organ prolapse on the internet. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26(4):551–555. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2538-z
  19. Nassiri M, Mohamed O, Berzins A, et al. Surfing behind a boat: quality and reliability of online reso-urces on scaphoid fractures. J Hand Surg Asian Pac Vol 2016;21(3):374–381. DOI: 10.1142/S2424835516500375
  20. Nassiri M, Bruce-Brand RA, O'Neill F, et al. Surfing for hip replacements: has the “internet tidal wave” led to better quality information. J Arthroplasty 2014;29(7):1339–1344. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.01.009
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.