ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2017
Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Quality and accuracy of online nutrition-related information: a systematic review of content analysis studies.Public health nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Online health information seeking preferences among pregnant women: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Perinatal Women's Perception of Maternal Health Information Quality on Digital Media: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- An Online Multimodal Food Data Exploration Platform for Specific Population Health: Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Reliability of Health Portals' Nutrition and Supplementation Advice for Pregnant Women: A Comprehensive Review.Nutrients · 2024Review
- A survey of Australian women's digital media usage in pregnancy and labour and birth.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Motivations for nutrition information-seeking behavior among Belgian adults: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of innovative communication approaches in nutrition to promote and improve health literacy.The Ulster medical journal · 2022Review
- Understanding Information Needs and Barriers to Accessing Health Information Across All Stages of Pregnancy: Systematic Review.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Review
- Overview of a new eHealth intervention to promote healthy eating and exercise in pregnancy: Initial user responses and acceptability.Internet interventions · 2021Article
- Nutripedia: The Fight against the Fake News in Nutrition during Pregnancy and Early Life.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Sources of nutrition information for Indonesian women during pregnancy: how is information sought and provided?Public health nutrition · 2021Article
- The use of the Gunning Fog Index to evaluate the readability of Polish and English drug leaflets in the context of Health Literacy challenges in Medical Linguistics: An exploratory study.Cardiology journal · 2021Article
- Smartphone applications available to pregnant women in the United Kingdom: An assessment of nutritional information.Maternal & child nutrition · 2020Review
- Updating the Food-Based Dietary Guidelines for the Spanish Population: The Spanish Society of Community Nutrition (SENC) Proposal.Nutrients · 2019Article
- Food Addiction Support: Website Content Analysis.JMIR cardio · 2018Article
- Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis.Maternal & child nutrition · 2017Article
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
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
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.