SynthesisBMJ open2020
COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Pooled it
- Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Pooled 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
- Inguinal hernia repair: a systematic analysis of online patient information using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022Pooled it
- Using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool to Assess Patient Information on Appendicitis Websites: Systematic Search and Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- Can large language models be trusted? Reliability and readability of responses to perinatal depression FAQs.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring vaccine acceptance using Protection Motivation Theory: A study of college students' behavioral intentions in the context of COVID-19.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Article
- Quality Assessment of Health Information on Social Media During a Public Health Crisis: Infodemiology Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Internet Usage, Social Participation, and Depression Symptoms Among Middle-Aged and Older Adult Chinese Individuals Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Patient education resources for oral mucositis: a google search and ChatGPT analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Quality and content assessment of internet information on nasoalveolar molding.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Assessment of readability, reliability, and quality of ChatGPT®, BARD®, Gemini®, Copilot®, Perplexity® responses on palliative care.Medicine · 2024Observational
- Evaluation of the Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information Regarding Foreign Bodies of the Ear, Nose, and Throat: Qualitative Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Examining the Public's Most Frequently Asked Questions About Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Appraising Online Information About Treatment.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Evaluating the web as a source of information for patients with chest wall deformities: insights into engagement and disparities.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Eyelid Ptosis Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) Tool.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- When Patients Go to "Dr. Google" Before They Go to the Emergency Department.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Observational
- Content and quality of YouTube regarding women's health: a scoping review.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of information regarding the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 available to the general public from all countries.
designSystematic analysis using the 'Ensuring Quality Information for Patients' (EQIP) Tool (score 0-36), DATA SOURCES: Twelve popular search terms, including 'Coronavirus', 'COVID-19 19', 'Wuhan virus', 'How to treat coronavirus' and 'COVID-19 19 Prevention' were identified by 'Google AdWords' and 'Google Trends'. Unique links from the first 10 pages for each search term were identified and evaluated on its quality of information. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: All websites written in the English language, and provides information on prevention or treatment of COVID-19 intended for the general public were considered eligible. Any websites intended for professionals, or specific isolated populations, such as students from one particular school, were excluded, as well as websites with only video content, marketing content, daily caseload update or news dashboard pages with no health information.
resultsOf the 1275 identified websites, 321 (25%) were eligible for analysis. The overall EQIP,
conclusionThis comprehensive assessment of online COVID-19 information using EQIP,
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.