Search Engine Optimization: An Analysis of Rhinoplasty Web sites

Abstract

The Internet is the primary source of information for facial plastic surgery patients. Most patients only analyze information in the first 10 Web sites retrieved. The aim of this study was to determine factors critical for improving Web site traffic and search engine optimization. A Google search of “rhinoplasty” was performed in Michigan. The first 20 distinct Web sites originating from private sources were included. Private was defined as personal Web sites for private practice physicians. The Web sites were evaluated using SEOquake and WooRANK, publicly available programs that analyze Web sites. Factors examined included the presence of social media, the number of distinct pages on the Web site, the traffic to the Web site, use of keywords, such as rhinoplasty in the heading and meta description, average visit duration, traffic coming from search, bounce rate, and the number of advertisements. Readability and Web site quality were also analyzed using the DISCERN and Health on the Net Foundation code principles. The first 10 Web sites were compared with the latter 10 Web sites using Student's t-tests. The first 10 Web sites received a significantly lower portion of traffic from search engines than the second 10 Web sites. The first 10 Web sites also had significantly fewer tags of the keyword “nose” in the meta description of the Web site. The first 10 Web sites were significantly more reliable according to the DISCERN instrument, scoring an average of 2.42 compared with 2.05 for the second 10 Web sites (p = 0.029). Search engine optimization is critical for facial plastic surgeons as it improves online presence. This may potentially result in increased traffic and an increase in patient visits. However, Web sites that rely too heavily on search engines for traffic are less likely to be in the top 10 search results. Web site curators should maintain a wide focus for obtaining Web site traffic, possibly including advertising and publishing information in third party sources such as “RealSelf.”

Keywords

search engine - patient education materials - usability

• References

• 1 Fox S. Peer to Peer Healthcare. Pew Internet Research Project. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/28/peer-to-peer-health-care-2/ . Accessed May 26, 2017
• 2 Montemurro P, Porcnik A, Hedén P, Otte M. The influence of social media and easily accessible online information on the aesthetic plastic surgery practice: literature review and our own experience. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39 (02) 270-277
• 3 Heidekrueger PI, Juran S, Patel A, Tanna N, Broer PN. Plastic Surgery Statistics in the US: Evidence and Implications. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2016; 40 (02) 293-300
• 4 Krawczyk K. Google is easily the most popular search engine, but have you heard who's in second?. Available at: https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/google-baidu-are-the-worlds-most-popular-search-engines/ . Accessed May 27, 2017
• 5 Si S. Search is still the biggest game in town. Available at: https://seo-hacker.com/search-biggest-game-in-town/ . Accessed May 27, 2017
• 6 Google Inc. How search algorithms work. Available at: https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/algorithms.html . Accessed April 10, 2017
• 7 Singhal A. More guidance on building high-quality sites. Available at: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html . Accessed April 10, 2017
• 8 Cutts M. Another step to reward high-quality sites. Available at: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2012/04/another-step-to-reward-high-quality.html . Accessed April 10, 2017
• 9 Rufai SR, Davis CR. Aesthetic surgery and Google: ubiquitous, unregulated and enticing websites for patients considering cosmetic surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (05) 640-643
• 10 WooRank. So what is WooRank?. Available at: https://www.woorank.com/en/p/about . Accessed October 14, 2016
• 11 SEOquake. A powerful SEO toolbox for your browser. Available at: https://www.seoquake.com/index.html . Accessed October 14, 2016
• 12 Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ingargiola MJ, Granick MS. A survey of patient comprehension of readily accessible online educational material regarding plastic surgery procedures. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 33 (03) 436-442
• 13 McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63 (1-2): 24-28
• 14 Gordon JB, Barot LR, Fahey AL, Matthews MS. The Internet as a source of information on breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (01) 171-176
• 15 Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, Wazzan M, Pines JM. The content and quality of health information on the internet for patients and families on adult kidney cancer. J Cancer Educ 2016
• 16 Nghiem AZ, Mahmoud Y, Som R. Evaluating the quality of internet information for breast cancer. Breast 2016; 25: 34-37
• 17 British Library and the University of Oxford. The DISCERN instrument. Available at: http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.php . Accessed April 2, 2015
• 18 Health on the Net Foundation Homepage. Available at: http://www.hon.ch/ . Accessed May 24, 2016
• 19 Rayess H, Zuliani GF, Gupta A. , et al. Critical analysis of the quality, readability, and technical aspects of online information provided for neck-lifts. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (02) 115-120
• 20 Koch-Weser S, Bradshaw YS, Gualtieri L, Gallagher SS. The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication. J Health Commun 2010; 15 (Suppl. 03) 279-293
• 21 Madden M, Fox S. Finding answers online in sickness and in health. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/05/02/finding-answers-online-in-sickness-and-in-health/ . Accessed May 27, 2017
• 22 Evans D. Internet visibility. Ceatus Mark. Gr. Available at: www.ceatus.com . Accessed May 1, 2017
• 23 Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 2002; 324 (7337): 573-577
• 24 Hu W, Siegfried EC, Siegel DM. Product-related emphasis of skin disease information online. Arch Dermatol 2002; 138 (06) 775-780
• 25 Ansani NT, Vogt M, Henderson BAF. , et al. Quality of arthritis information on the Internet. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005; 62 (11) 1184-1189
• 26 Szychta P, Zieliński T, Rykała J, Witmanowski H, Kruk-Jeromin J. Role of the internet in communication between patient and surgeon before rhinoplasty. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2012; 46 (3-4): 248-251
• 27 Kandinov A, Mutchnick S, Nangia V. , et al. Analysis of factors associated with rhytidectomy malpractice litigation cases. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19 (04) 255-259
• 28 Svider PF, Carron MA, Zuliani GF, Eloy JA, Setzen M, Folbe AJ. Lasers and losers in the eyes of the law: liability for head and neck procedures. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2014; 16 (04) 277-283
• 29 Wong WW, Camp MC, Camp JS, Gupta SC. The quality of Internet advertising in aesthetic surgery: an in-depth analysis. Aesthet Surg J 2010; 30 (05) 735-743
• 30 Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (02) 97-107
• 31 Sheridan SL, Halpern DJ, Viera AJ, Berkman ND, Donahue KE, Crotty K. Interventions for individuals with low health literacy: a systematic review. J Health Commun 2011; 16 (Suppl. 03) 30-54
• 32 Svider PF, Agarwal N, Choudhry OJ. , et al. Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 2013; 34 (01) 31-35
• 33 MedlinePlus. How to write easy-to-read health materials. Available at: https://medlineplus.gov/etr.html . Accessed May 20, 2017
• 34 Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147 (03) 466-471