ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015
Assessment of Web-Based Consumer Reviews as a Resource for Drug Performance.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. 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.
- Classifying Drug Ratings Using User Reviews with Transformer-Based Language Models.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2022Article
- Adverse Events Due to Insomnia Drugs Reported in a Regulatory Database and Online Patient Reviews: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Identification of Primary Medication Concerns Regarding Thyroid Hormone Replacement Therapy From Online Patient Medication Reviews: Text Mining of Social Network Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Developing a Shared Patient-Centered, Web-Based Medication Platform for Type 2 Diabetes Patients and Their Health Care Providers: Qualitative Study on User Requirements.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Treatment choices for depression: Young people's response to a traditional e-health versus a Health 2.0 website.Digital healthArticle
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
backgroundSome health websites provide a public forum for consumers to post ratings and reviews on drugs. Drug reviews are easily accessible and comprehensible, unlike clinical trials and published literature. Because the public increasingly uses the Internet as a source of medical information, it is important to know whether such information is reliable.
objectiveWe aim to examine whether Web-based consumer drug ratings and reviews can be used as a resource to compare drug performance.
methodsWe analyzed 103,411 consumer-generated reviews on 615 drugs used to treat 249 disease conditions from the health website WebMD. Statistical analysis identified 427 drug pairs from 24 conditions for which two drugs treating the same condition had significantly and substantially different satisfaction ratings (with at least a half-point difference between Web-based ratings and P<.01). PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for publications that were assessed for concordance with findings online.
resultsScientific literature was found for 77 out of the 427 drug pairs and compared to findings online. Nearly two-thirds (48/77, 62%) of the online drug trends with at least a half-point difference in online ratings were supported by published literature (P=.02). For a 1-point online rating difference, the concordance rate increased to 68% (15/22) (P=.07). The discrepancies between scientific literature and findings online were further examined to obtain more insights into the usability of Web-based consumer-generated reviews. We discovered that (1) drugs with FDA black box warnings or used off-label were rated poorly in Web-based reviews, (2) drugs with addictive properties were rated higher than their counterparts in Web-based reviews, and (3) second-line or alternative drugs were rated higher. In addition, Web-based ratings indicated drug delivery problems. If FDA black box warning labels are used to resolve disagreements between publications and online trends, the concordance rate increases to 71% (55/77) (P<.001) for a half-point rating difference and 82% (18/22) for a 1-point rating difference (P=.002). Our results suggest that Web-based reviews can be used to inform patients' drug choices, with certain caveats.
conclusionsWeb-based reviews can be viewed as an orthogonal source of information for consumers, physicians, and drug manufacturers to assess the performance of a drug. However, one should be cautious to rely solely on consumer reviews as ratings can be strongly influenced by the consumer experience.
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.