1248 - Evaluating Online Educational Resources for Osteogenesis Imperfecta: Insights from Google, Bing, and ChatGPT3.5

Friday, February 20, 2026

5:00 PM - 6:30 PM AST

Presenting Author(s)

VP

Victoria Partin, BS

Medical Student
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Norfolk, Virginia, United States

Co-Author(s)

AH

Andrea M. Hooberman-Pineiro, BS

Medical Student
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Norfolk, Virginia, United States
AP

April A. Pace, DHSc, MLS

Evidence-Based Medicine Discipline Director
Macon & Joan Brock Virginia Health Sciences Eastern Virginia Medical School at Old Dominion University
Norfolk, Virginia, United States

Submitter(s)

VP

Victoria Partin, BS

Eastern Virginia Medical School
Norfolk, Virginia, United States

Objectives: Osteogenesis Imperfecta is a rare connective tissue disorder resulting in a diverse range of musculoskeletal deformities. Patient education is an important aspect of medical care, and the internet is a popular place in which patients seek information about their medical conditions. This is a cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the quality of online patient educational websites about Osteogenesis Imperfecta.

Design: The authors searched for patient education websites using Google and Bing. Twenty patient education websites about Osteogenesis Imperfecta were collected from each. Websites meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated using the DISCERN tool, JAMA Benchmark Criteria evaluation, and a Flesch-Kincaid Readability test. T-tests were used to compare search engine results. Websites were also collected from ChatGPT3.5, however, due to hallucinations and exclusion criteria, the sample size was too small to compare to the search engines.

Results:
No significant differences were found between search engines, and the quality of the websites was not high. Average overall ratings for DISCERN were mediocre, and for the JAMA criteria they were low. The average readability scores required 8-9 grade level reading comprehension, although there was variability within each search engine.

Conclusions:
Neither search engine provided significantly better sources than the other, the overall quality of the websites was not high, and the low readability scores could make these difficult for patients with lower health literacy to understand