Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11368735›Full record

ArticleJAMA

Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish.

G K Berland, M N Elliott, L S Morales, J I Algazy, R L Kravitz, M S Broder, D E Kanouse, J A Muñoz, J A Puyol, M Lara and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 352 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
352citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

352 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Myopia Management.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

292 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

G K BerlandRAND Health, Santa Monica, CA, USA. berland@rand.org
M N Elliott
L S Morales
J I Algazy
R L Kravitz
M S Broder
D E Kanouse
J A Muñoz
J A Puyol
M Lara
K E Watkins
H Yang
E A McGlynn

Funding

The Center for Health Improvement of Minority ElderlyP30AG021684 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CAROL M MANGIONE · 2002 to 2026
$19.7M
DREW/UCLA Project Export CenterP20MD000148 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI SHAPIRO, MARTIN F · 2002 to 2006
$3.6M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021684NIMHD NIH HHS P20 MD000148
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextDespite the substantial amount of health-related information available on the Internet, little is known about the accessibility, quality, and reading grade level of that health information.

objectiveTo evaluate health information on breast cancer, depression, obesity, and childhood asthma available through English- and Spanish-language search engines and Web sites. DESIGN AND

settingThree unique studies were performed from July 2000 through December 2000. Accessibility of 14 search engines was assessed using a structured search experiment. Quality of 25 health Web sites and content provided by 1 search engine was evaluated by 34 physicians using structured implicit review (interrater reliability >0.90). The reading grade level of text selected for structured implicit review was established using the Fry Readability Graph method.

main outcome measuresFor the accessibility study, proportion of links leading to relevant content; for quality, coverage and accuracy of key clinical elements; and grade level reading formulas.

resultsLess than one quarter of the search engine's first pages of links led to relevant content (20% of English and 12% of Spanish). On average, 45% of the clinical elements on English- and 22% on Spanish-language Web sites were more than minimally covered and completely accurate and 24% of the clinical elements on English- and 53% on Spanish-language Web sites were not covered at all. All English and 86% of Spanish Web sites required high school level or greater reading ability.

conclusionAccessing health information using search engines and simple search terms is not efficient. Coverage of key information on English- and Spanish-language Web sites is poor and inconsistent, although the accuracy of the information provided is generally good. High reading levels are required to comprehend Web-based health information.

Indexed as

InternetLanguageMedical InformaticsConsumer AdvocacyCross-Sectional StudiesEfficiencyHealth EducationInformation ServicesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID11368735
PMCPMC4182102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.