SynthesisCurrent psychiatry reports2007
A systematic review of the quality of information on the treatment of anxiety disorders on the internet.
Synthesis in Current psychiatry reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Online Patient Resources to Support Shared Decision Making for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.World journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of internet-based interventions for children, youth, and young adults with anxiety and/or depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.Current psychiatry reports · 2009Pooled it
- E-Rehabilitation - an Internet and mobile phone based tailored intervention to enhance self-management of cardiovascular disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2012Trial
- Effectiveness of digital health interventions for perinatal depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oxford open digital health · 2024Review
- Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating an Artificial Intelligence-Guided Mental Health Resource Navigation Chatbot for Health Care Workers and Their Families During and Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Cross-sectional Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Performance of an App-Based Symptom Checker in Mental Disorders: Comparative Study in Psychotherapy Outpatients.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Dietary and herbal supplements for fatigue: A quality assessment of online consumer health information.Integrative medicine research · 2021Article
- Dietary and herbal supplements for weight loss: assessing the quality of patient information online.Nutrition journal · 2021Article
- Modeling mental health information preferences during the early adult years: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.Journal of health communication · 2014Article
- Quality of Web-based information on obsessive compulsive disorder.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2013Article
- Use of the internet to assist in the treatment of depression and anxiety: a systematic review.Primary care companion to the Journal of clinical psychiatry · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A vast amount of information describing health interventions is available on the Internet. This paper describes the systematic retrieval and quality assessment of websites containing information on the treatment of anxiety disorders. Separate searches were conducted for information on generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. The Google, Yahoo, and MSN search engines yielded 540 results, 110 of which were eligible for inclusion. Sixty-seven unique websites were identified. The DISCERN scale was used to evaluate quality of content. The authors also compared the websites in terms of popularity, readability, and a range of technical criteria. Websites were generally of poor to moderate quality. Higher-quality scores were obtained for websites whose authors attributed their sources and provided a clear statement of the purpose of the website. The paper closes by considering limitations of the review and possible future research avenues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17880862What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.