ArticleAtencion primaria2010
[How are the websites of pharmaceutical companies directed at users?].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the content and structure of the websites of pharmaceutical companies (PC) with health information to patients.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: health topics treated, and 9 sections: objectives and target population; editorial policy, authoring, updating of content, personal data protection, interactivity, accessibility, advertising labels.
settingInternet.
participantsAll PC websites with patient health information in Spanish.
resultsWe studied 60 sites found. Most common: 19.3% neurology, mental health and 12% digestive diseases. Few specify the address of the person responsible for the site (51.7%), responsible for quality (10%) or the authors of the text (15%). Nearly 2/3 show the date of publication of content (66.7%), but only 13.3% updated. Privacy and data protection are mentioned in 65%, with only 28.3% allowing control of the use of personal data. Only 10% allow expressing doubts online and 1/3 of the sites have frequently asked questions. A total of 41.7% omitted to say their information does not replace medical advice. Educational materials (for children) can be downloaded in 11.7%. Almost all (93.3%) adapted their language to the recipient, but none are accessible to disabled people. The majority (86.7%) have the company logo on all pages. Only 16.7% are fronts for advertising, and only 9 sites have a quality seal (HONcode).
conclusionsPages are designed to give superficial information on a disease than directly advertise a particular brand or active ingredient. However, their reliability has to be low due to the authors and sources of information being unknown. If Internet health information was truthful and backed up by authors or appropriate information sources, the Internet could well be a genuine health education tool.
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.