ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2018
Characterizing Websites That Provide Information About Complementary and Integrative Health: Systematic Search and Evaluation of Five Domains.
Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Internet health information-seeking behavior and the use of traditional and complementary medicine: the role of online engagement and perceived information usefulness and reliability.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- The quality of health information provided on web sites selling cannabis to consumers in Canada is poor.Harm reduction journal · 2022Article
- Factors Associated with Website Operation among Small Hospitals and Medical and Dental Clinics in Korea.Healthcare informatics research · 2022Article
- Tracking discussions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a month-by-month sentiment analysis of Twitter data.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the quality of online patient information at the intersection of complementary and alternative medicine and hypertension.Clinical hypertension · 2022Article
- Quality of complementary and alternative medicine information for type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional survey and quality assessment of websites.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Web-information surrounding complementary and alternative medicine for low back pain: a cross-sectional survey and quality assessment.Integrative medicine research · 2021Article
- Cannabis for pain: a cross-sectional survey of the patient information quality on the Internet.Journal of cannabis research · 2021Article
- In the Turkish News: Coronavirus and "Alternative & complementary" medicine methods.Complementary therapies in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, there has been an increase in the utilization of complementary and integrative health (CIH) care, and an increase in information-seeking behavior focused on CIH. Thus, understanding the quality of CIH information that is available on the internet is imperative. Although there have been a limited number of studies evaluating the quality of websites providing information about specific CIH-related topics, a broad evaluation of CIH websites has not been conducted.
objectiveThis study was designed to fill that gap. We set out to assess website quality in 5 CIH domains: (1) acupuncture, (2) homeopathy, (3) massage, (4) reiki, and (5) yoga. This study aimed to 1) characterize the websites by type and quality; 2) evaluate website characteristics which may affect readers' perceptions, specifically message content, structural features, and presentation style, and 3) investigate the extent to which harms, benefits and purposes of use are stated on websites.
methodsThis study employed a systematic search strategy to identify websites in each of the target domains to be evaluated. The websites were then classified by type, and a set of checklists focusing on quality, message content, structural features, and presentation style was used to evaluate the websites. Lastly, we performed content analysis to identify harms, benefits, and perceived purposes of use.
resultsThere were similarities across domains regarding their overall quality and their message content. Across all domains, a high proportion of websites received strong scores in terms of ownership, currency, interactivity and navigability. Scores were more variable concerning authorship, balanced presentation of information and the use of sources of information. However, there were differences regarding their structural features and presentation style. Acupuncture and reiki sites tended to include more external links, and yoga, fewer. There was variation across domains in the extent to which the websites contained domain-specific terminology. Websites tended to provide an extensive list of potential benefits, while reporting of harms was scarce.
conclusionsThis is the first study to perform a multidimensional assessment of websites in multiple CIH domains. This review showed that while there are similarities among websites of different CIH domains, there are also differences. The diverse distribution of website types suggests that, regardless of CIH domain, the public encounters information through many different types of media, and it would be useful to consider how the presentation of this content may differ depending on the medium. The characteristics for which variability exist are areas that warrant greater attention from researchers, policy makers, clinicians and patients. There is also a need to better understand how individuals may interact with CIH websites, and to develop tools to assist people to interpret the CIH-related information that they encounter.
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.