SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019
Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 173 papers, 6 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
173 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Landscape of Mobile Apps for Healthy Eating: Case Study for a Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Examining the relationship between health literacy and eHealth literacy in adult populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Health promotion international · 2025Pooled 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
- Quality of web-based information about the coronavirus disease 2019: a rapid systematic review of infodemiology studies published during the first year of the pandemic.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Can We Go Online for Sports Injury Prevention? A Systematic Review of English-Language Websites with Exercise-Based Sports Injury Risk Reduction Programmes.Sports medicine - open · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of a Digital Decision Aid When Choosing Between Face-to-Face and Guided Internet-Based Psychological Interventions for Depression Among Chinese-Speaking Participants in Hong Kong: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- The Effectiveness of a Physician-Led Web Portal on Back Pain: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Trial
- Online Plain Language Tool and Health Information Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Consulting Dr. Google: Two experimental studies on seeking mental health information online.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Patient-centered online health information on diverticulitis: Assessing the readability, content, and overall quality.American journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Quality, Reliability, and Content Characteristics of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Videos on TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook: A Mixed-Methods Cross-Platform Analysis.Obesity surgery · 2026Article
- Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Accuracy and Completeness of Online Patient Information on Nail-Patella Syndrome: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Do ChatGPT and Gemini provide accurate answers to patient questions about glenohumeral arthritis?JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Article
- Perceptions and attitudes towards obesity and metabolic and bariatric surgery for weight loss in children and adolescents: a survey among a subset of Chinese residents.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Publicly Accessible Large Language Model Responses to Frequently Asked Questions About Spondylodiscitis: Preliminary Expert Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- LLMs in Medical Education for Autism Caregivers: A Comparative Evaluation of Accuracy, Readability, Actionability, and Neurodiversity-Affirming Language.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A patient-derived benchmark for evaluating large language models in connective tissue diseases: blinded multi-stakeholder assessment and guideline comparison.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
113 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Internet has become a leading source of health information accessed by patients and the general public. It is crucial that this information is reliable and accurate.
objectivesThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the overall quality of online health information targeting patients and the general public.
methodsThe systematic review is based on a pre-established protocol and is reported according to the PRISMA statement. Eleven databases and Internet searches were performed for relevant studies. Descriptive statistics were used to synthesize data. The NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.
resultsOut of 3393 references, we included 153 cross-sectional studies evaluating 11,785 websites using 14 quality assessment tools. The quality level varied across scales. Using DISCERN, none of the websites received a category of excellent in quality, 37-79% were rated as good, and the rest were rated as poor quality. Only 18% of websites were HON Code certified. Quality varied by affiliation (governmental was higher than academic, which was higher than other media sources) and by health specialty (likely higher in internal medicine and anesthesiology).
conclusionThis comprehensive systematic review demonstrated suboptimal quality of online health information. Therefore, the Internet at the present time does not provide reliable health information for laypersons. The quality of online health information requires significant improvement which should be a mandate for policymakers and private and public organizations.
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.