Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32944269›Full record

ReviewDigital health

Factors affecting the quality and reliability of online health information.

Gopi Battineni, Simone Baldoni, Nalini Chintalapudi, Getu Gamo Sagaro, Graziano Pallotta, Giulio Nittari, Francesco Amenta

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

94 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Digital transformation in healthcare to strengthen patient autonomy].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Googling adenomyosis: a systematic review of internet-based information.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
    Article

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gopi BattineniTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0603-2356
Simone BaldoniTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Nalini ChintalapudiTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Getu Gamo SagaroTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Graziano PallottaTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Giulio NittariTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.
Francesco AmentaTelemedicine and Telepharmacy Centre, School of Medicinal and Health Products Sciences, University of Camerino, Camerino, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet represents a relevant source of information, but reliability of data that can be obtained by the web is still an unsolved issue. Non-reliable online information may have a relevance, especially in taking decisions related to health problems. Uncertainties on the quality of online health data may have a negative impact on health-related choices of citizens.

objectiveThis work consisted in a cross-sectional literature review of published papers on online health information. The two main research objectives consisted in the analysis of trends in the use of health web sites and in the quality assessment and reliability levels of web medical sites.

methodsLiterature research was made using four digital reference databases, namely PubMed, British Medical Journal, Biomed, and CINAHL. Entries used were "trustworthy of medical information online," "survey to evaluate medical information online," "medical information online," and "habits of web-based health information users". Analysis included only papers published in English. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to conduct quality checks of selected works.

resultsLiterature analysis using the above entries resulted in 212 studies. Twenty-four articles in line with study objectives, and user characteristics were selected. People more prone to use the internet for obtaining health information were females, younger people, scholars, and employees. Reliability of different online health sites is an issue taken into account by the majority of people using the internet for obtaining health information and physician assistance could help people to surf more safe health web sites.

conclusionsLimited health information and/or web literacy can cause misunderstandings in evaluating medical data found in the web. An appropriate education plan and evaluation tools could enhance user skills and bring to a more cautious analysis of health information found in the web.

Indexed as

health literacyHealth web sitesmedical informationquality of internet sites

Identifiers

PMID32944269
PMCPMC7466903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.