ArticleTelemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association2013
A web search on environmental topics: what is the role of ranking?
Article in Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Big Data in occupational medicine: the convergence of -omics sciences, participatory research and e-health.La Medicina del lavoro · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the Internet is easy to use, the mechanisms and logic behind a Web search are often unknown. Reliable information can be obtained, but it may not be visible as the Web site is not located in the first positions of search results. The possible risks of adverse health effects arising from environmental hazards are issues of increasing public interest, and therefore the information about these risks, particularly on topics for which there is no scientific evidence, is very crucial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the presentation of information on some environmental health topics differed among various search engines, assuming that the most reliable information should come from institutional Web sites. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive search engines were used: Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Ask, and AOL. The following topics were searched in combination with the word "health": "nuclear energy," "electromagnetic waves," "air pollution," "waste," and "radon." For each topic three key words were used. The first 30 search results for each query were considered. The ranking variability among the search engines and the type of search results were analyzed for each topic and for each key word. The ranking of institutional Web sites was given particular consideration.
resultsVariable results were obtained when surfing the Internet on different environmental health topics. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that, when searching for radon and air pollution topics, it is more likely to find institutional Web sites in the first 10 positions compared with nuclear power (odds ratio=3.4, 95% confidence interval 2.1-5.4 and odds ratio=2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8-4.7, respectively) and also when using Google compared with Bing (odds ratio=3.1, 95% confidence interval 1.9-5.1).
conclusionsThe increasing use of online information could play an important role in forming opinions. Web users should become more aware of the importance of finding reliable information, and health institutions should be able to make that information more visible.
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.