ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2018
[Assessment of health information available online regarding meningococcal B vaccine recommendations].
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Information in Spanish on the Internet about the Prevention of COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Assessment of Health Information About COVID-19 Prevention on the Internet: Infodemiological Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe quality of health information online is a concern to governments and users. Our objective was to determine the extent to which the information available online regarding meningococcal B vaccine recommendations adhere to the guidelines of the Spanish Ministry of Health.
methodsCross-sectional study carried out in April 2017. The study assessed adherence of information regarding vaccine recommendations to official guidelines. The information was collected via Google with 20 keywords. The Chi-squared test was used to analyze the association between the adhered information and its origin.
resultsIn total, 186 web links were analyzed. Adhered recommendations were found in a range of links, from 52.2% (97/186) with an indication for people with properdin deficiency/terminal component pathway deficiency, to 79.6% for outbreak situations. Vaccinating children from two months of age was a recommendation not issued by the Ministry that was found in 72.6% of the links. For each of the Ministry recommendations, official public health institutions always provide information adhering to them. Digital media provided information about vaccination adhering to official guidelines with a significantly higher frequency than scientific societies in cases of people with properdin deficiency/terminal component pathway deficiency (OR: 2.72; 95%CI: 1.18-6.28) and asplenia (OR: 3.83; 95%CI: 1.66-8.86).
conclusionsWe have observed a difficulty to obtain adhered information. Users must be encouraged to access websites of official public health institutions when looking for information about this vaccine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29741515PMC11587211W2989760518What 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.