Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27353248›Full record

ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2017

Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis.

Tayla Storr, Judith Maher, Elizabeth Swanepoel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tayla StorrSchool of Health and Sports Science, Faculty of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland Australia.
Judith MaherSchool of Health and Sports Science, Faculty of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland Australia.
Elizabeth SwanepoelSchool of Health and Sports Science, Faculty of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pregnant women actively seek health information online, including nutrition and food-related topics. However, the accuracy and readability of this information have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to describe and evaluate pregnancy-related food and nutrition information available online. Four search engines were used to search for pregnancy-related nutrition web pages. Content analysis of web pages was performed. Web pages were assessed against the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines to assess accuracy. Flesch-Kincaid (F-K), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog Index (FOG) and Flesch reading ease (FRE) formulas were used to assess readability. Data was analysed descriptively. Spearman's correlation was used to assess the relationship between web page characteristics. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to check for differences among readability and other web page characteristics. A total of 693 web pages were included. Web page types included commercial (n = 340), not-for-profit (n = 113), blogs (n = 112), government (n = 89), personal (n = 36) and educational (n = 3). The accuracy of online nutrition information varied with 39.7% of web pages containing accurate information, 22.8% containing mixed information and 37.5% containing inaccurate information. The average reading grade of all pages analysed measured by F-K, SMOG and FOG was 11.8. The mean FRE was 51.6, a 'fairly difficult to read' score. Only 0.5% of web pages were written at or below grade 6 according to F-K, SMOG and FOG. The findings suggest that accuracy of pregnancy-related nutrition information is a problem on the internet. Web page readability is generally difficult and means that the information may not be accessible to those who cannot read at a sophisticated level. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth LiteracyInternetPregnancyAustraliaDietFemaleHumansNutrition PolicyPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnant Peopleaccuracyinternetnutritiononlinepregnancyreadability

Identifiers

PMID27353248
PMCPMC6865949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.