ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2012
Using Internet search engines to obtain medical information: a comparative study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 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
75 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Internet-Based Information About Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- The Effects of Website Traits and Medical Skepticism on Patients' Willingness to Follow Web-Based Medical Advice: Web-Based Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Multicenter randomized comparative trial of Micromedex, Micromedex with Watson, or Google to answer drug information questions.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Trial
- Confirmation bias in web-based search: a randomized online study on the effects of expert information and social tags on information search and evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Trial
- Advice and Information About Toothbrushing as Available on Websites of Professional Dental Care Associations.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026Article
- Understanding Primary Care Physicians' Comprehension of Eye Care Notes to Improve Diabetes Care Coordination.Research square · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Information Needs and Preferences of Men With Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Internet Forum Posts.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Avascular Necrosis.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of microsoft copilot artificial intelligence chatbot and google search in answering patient inquiries about infertility: evaluating readability, understandability, and actionability.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- Evaluating search engines and large language models for answering health questions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Breast Cancer Screening Participation and Internet Search Activity in a Japanese Population: Decade-Long Time-Series Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Decoding wisdom: Evaluating ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility in analyzing orthopantomographic images for third molar assessment.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness and limitations of online health information tools in assessing the quality of medication-related content.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Use of Generative AI for Improving Health Literacy in Reproductive Health: Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Readability, Understandability, Usability, and Cultural Sensitivity of Online Patient Educational Materials (PEMs) for Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Study.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Analyzing Google COVID-19 Vaccine Intent Search Trends and Vaccine Readiness in the United States: Panel Data Study.Online journal of public health informatics · 2024Article
- Developing a Tool for Assessing the Process of Seeking Health Information: Online Think-Aloud Method.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Fluoride, pH Value, and Titratable Acidity of Commercially Available Mouthwashes.International dental journal · 2024Article
- Web-Based Information on Spinal Cord Stimulation: Qualitative Assessment of Publicly Accessible Online Resources.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Internet has become one of the most important means to obtain health and medical information. It is often the first step in checking for basic information about a disease and its treatment. The search results are often useful to general users. Various search engines such as Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and Ask.com can play an important role in obtaining medical information for both medical professionals and lay people. However, the usability and effectiveness of various search engines for medical information have not been comprehensively compared and evaluated.
objectiveTo compare major Internet search engines in their usability of obtaining medical and health information.
methodsWe applied usability testing as a software engineering technique and a standard industry practice to compare the four major search engines (Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and Ask.com) in obtaining health and medical information. For this purpose, we searched the keyword breast cancer in Google, Yahoo!, Bing, and Ask.com and saved the results of the top 200 links from each search engine. We combined nonredundant links from the four search engines and gave them to volunteer users in an alphabetical order. The volunteer users evaluated the websites and scored each website from 0 to 10 (lowest to highest) based on the usefulness of the content relevant to breast cancer. A medical expert identified six well-known websites related to breast cancer in advance as standards. We also used five keywords associated with breast cancer defined in the latest release of Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) and analyzed their occurrence in the websites.
resultsEach search engine provided rich information related to breast cancer in the search results. All six standard websites were among the top 30 in search results of all four search engines. Google had the best search validity (in terms of whether a website could be opened), followed by Bing, Ask.com, and Yahoo!. The search results highly overlapped between the search engines, and the overlap between any two search engines was about half or more. On the other hand, each search engine emphasized various types of content differently. In terms of user satisfaction analysis, volunteer users scored Bing the highest for its usefulness, followed by Yahoo!, Google, and Ask.com.
conclusionsGoogle, Yahoo!, Bing, and Ask.com are by and large effective search engines for helping lay users get health and medical information. Nevertheless, the current ranking methods have some pitfalls and there is room for improvement to help users get more accurate and useful information. We suggest that search engine users explore multiple search engines to search different types of health information and medical knowledge for their own needs and get a professional consultation if necessary.
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.