Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11884322›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002

Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites.

Funda Meric, Elmer V Bernstam, Nadeem Q Mirza, Kelly K Hunt, Frederick C Ames, Merrick I Ross, Henry M Kuerer, Raphael E Pollock, Mark A Musen, S Eva Singletary

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

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Information on the internet for asplenic patients: a systematic review.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2011
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Funda MericSection of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas, USA. fmeric@mail.mdanderson.org
Elmer V Bernstam
Nadeem Q Mirza
Kelly K Hunt
Frederick C Ames
Merrick I Ross
Henry M Kuerer
Raphael E Pollock
Mark A Musen
S Eva Singletary

Funding

SHARED INTERNET SERVER FOR DELIVERING GUIDELINESR01LM006594 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHORTLIFFE, EDWARD H · 1999 to 2002
$1.4M
NLM NIH HHS LM06594
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the characteristics of popular breast cancer related websites and whether more popular sites are of higher quality.

designThe search engine Google was used to generate a list of websites about breast cancer. Google ranks search results by measures of link popularity---the number of links to a site from other sites. The top 200 sites returned in response to the query "breast cancer" were divided into "more popular" and "less popular" subgroups by three different measures of link popularity: Google rank and number of links reported independently by Google and by AltaVista (another search engine).

main outcome measuresType and quality of content.

resultsMore popular sites according to Google rank were more likely than less popular ones to contain information on ongoing clinical trials (27% v 12%, P=0.01 ), results of trials (12% v 3%, P=0.02), and opportunities for psychosocial adjustment (48% v 23%, P<0.01). These characteristics were also associated with higher number of links as reported by Google and AltaVista. More popular sites by number of linking sites were also more likely to provide updates on other breast cancer research, information on legislation and advocacy, and a message board service. Measures of quality such as display of authorship, attribution or references, currency of information, and disclosure did not differ between groups.

conclusionsPopularity of websites is associated with type rather than quality of content. Sites that include content correlated with popularity may best meet the public's desire for information about breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth EducationHumansInformation ServicesInternet

Identifiers

PMID11884322
PMCPMC78995

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.