ArticlePerspectives in health information managemen2012
Evaluation of dengue-related health information on the internet.
Article in Perspectives in health information managemen, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Determinants of Infodemics During Disease Outbreaks: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19's myths, facts, concerning and obstinate posts on social network, and the mental health status of social network users in Bangladesh.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Disorders of sex development (DSD) web-based information: quality survey of DSD team websites.International journal of pediatric endocrinology · 2019Article
- Evaluating asthma websites using the Brief DISCERN instrument.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2017Article
- Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape.The Australasian medical journal · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the quality of dengue-related health information on the Internet. Three raters used the keyword dengue to search the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines during August 2011. The first 20 websites from each search engine were examined for a total of 60 sites. Duplicate, nonfunctional, non-English, and nonoperational websites were excluded from the study, resulting in 36 sites for final analysis. The 16-item DISCERN tool was used to evaluate the quality of dengue-related health information on the Internet. Chi-square analysis and analysis of variance were performed to compare the DISCERN scores. Inter-rater reliability analysis showed significant differences in the level of agreement among the three raters. The 36 unique websites were categorized into .com, .edu, .gov, .org, and other sites. The .com sites had the lowest DISCERN scores. Educating consumers on how to find and recognize valid health information on the Internet may lead to better informed decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22783151PMC3392950What 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.