ArticlePloS one2013
Analysis of free online physician advice services.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
- Trial
- Current Situations and Challenges in the Development of Health Information Literacy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Cross-lingual Unified Medical Language System entity linking in online health communities.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Patient-Physician Interaction and Trust in Online Health Community: The Role of Perceived Usefulness of Health Information and Services.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Aspiring to Unintended Consequences of Natural Language Processing: A Review of Recent Developments in Clinical and Consumer-Generated Text Processing.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
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
backgroundOnline Consumer Health websites are a major source of information for patients worldwide. We focus on another modality, online physician advice. We aim to evaluate and compare the freely available online expert physicians' advice in different countries, its scope and the type of content provided.
settingUsing automated methods for information retrieval and analysis, we compared consumer health portals from the US, Canada, the UK and Israel (WebMD,NetDoctor,AskTheDoctor and BeOK). The evaluated content was generated between 2002 and 2011.
resultsWe analyzed the different sites, looking at the distribution of questions in the various health topics, answer lengths and content type. Answers could be categorized into longer broad-educational answers versus shorter patient-specific ones, with different physicians having personal preferences as to answer type. The Israeli website BeOK, providing 10 times the number of answers than in the other three health portals, supplied answers that are shorter on average than in the other websites. Response times in these sites may be rapid with 32% of the WebMD answers and 64% of the BeOK answers provided in less than 24 hours. The voluntary contribution model used by BeOK and WebMD enables generation of large numbers of physician expert answers at low cost, providing 50,000 and 3,500 answers per year, respectively.
conclusionsUnlike health information in online databases or advice and support in patient-forums, online physician advice provides qualified specialists' responses directly relevant to the questions asked. Our analysis showed that high numbers of expert answers could be generated in a timely fashion using a voluntary model. The length of answers varied significantly between the internet sites. Longer answers were associated with educational content while short answers were associated with patient-specific content. Standard site-specific guidelines for expert answers will allow for more desirable content (educational content) or better throughput (patient-specific content).
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.