ArticleAtencion primaria2009
[Health information on the Internet and trust marks as quality indicators: vaccines case study].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of the Anti-Vaccine Movement in Social Networks: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Meningococcal vaccine information on YouTube in Türkiye: A cross-sectional analysis of content quality and reliability.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Information in Spanish on the Internet about the Prevention of COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Characteristics of YouTube videos about the meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB).Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Article
- Review
- [Assessment of health information available online regarding meningococcal B vaccine recommendations].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2018Article
- Article
- Dr. Google: what about the human papillomavirus vaccine?Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2013Article
- How has the flu virus infected the Web? 2010 influenza and vaccine information available on the Internet.BMC public health · 2013Article
- [Quality seals on websites, an aid for the user].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo find out the prevalence of quality trust marks present in websites and to analyse the quality of these websites displaying trust marks compared with those that do not display them, in order to put forward these trust marks as a quality indicator.
designCross-sectional study.
settingInternet.
participantsWebsites on vaccines. MAIN MEASURES: Using "vacunas OR vaccines" as key words, the features of 40 web pages were analysed. These web pages were selected from the page results of two search engines, Google and Yahoo!
resultsBased on a total of 9 criteria, the average score of criteria fulfilled was 7 (95% CI 3.96-10.04) points for the web pages offered by Yahoo! and 7.3 (95% CI 3.86-10.74) offered by Google. Amongst web pages offered by Yahoo!, there were three with clearly inaccurate information, while there were four in the pages offered by Google. Trust marks were displayed in 20% and 30% medical web pages, respectively, and their presence reached statistical significance (P=0.033) when fulfilling the quality criteria compared with web pages where trust marks were not displayed.
conclusionsA wide variety of web pages was obtained by search engines and a large number of them with useless information. Although the websites analysed had a good quality, between 15% and 20% showed inaccurate information. Websites where trust marks were displayed had more quality than those that did not display one and none of them were included amongst those where inaccurate information was found.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.