ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2021
Using the Google™ Search Engine for Health Information: Is There a Problem? Case Study: Supplements for Cancer.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Well Do "Dr. Google" and "Professor YouTube" Answer Health Questions for Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients and Caregivers?Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Assessing Quality, Readability, and Transparency of Online and AI-Generated Information on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- What Patients See: Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Ethnic Inclusivity of Online Resources for Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Review of the Quality and Reliability of Online Arabic Content on Diabetic Retinopathy: Infodemiological Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Patient Education in Bariatric Surgery: Can Artificial Intelligence-Based Chatbots Bridge the Knowledge Gap?Journal of obesity · 2026Article
- Readability assessment of patient education materials on autonomic dysreflexia.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Web-Based Information Related to Diet During Pregnancy in Pregnant Women: Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Acceptance and Usability of an Independent, Noncommercial Search Engine for Medical Information: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study and User Behavior Tracking Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Information Quality on Colon Cancer for Patients: A Study of ChatGPT-4 and Google.Cureus · 2024Article
- Use of Generative AI for Improving Health Literacy in Reproductive Health: Case Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Educating patients on osteoporosis and bone health: Can "ChatGPT" provide high-quality content?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Clear as Mud: Readability Scores in Cloacal Exstrophy Literature and Its Treatment.Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- Are popular books about diet and health written based on scientific evidence? A comparison of citations between the USA and Japan.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Web-Based Content on Diet and Nutrition Written in Japanese: Infodemiology Study Based on Google Trends and Google Search.JMIR formative research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We assessed the quality of online health and nutrition information using a Google™ search on "supplements for cancer". Search results were scored using the Health Information Quality Index (HIQI), a quality-rating tool consisting of 12 objective criteria related to website domain, lack of commercial aspects, and authoritative nature of the health and nutrition information provided. Possible scores ranged from 0 (lowest) to 12 ("perfect" or highest quality). After eliminating irrelevant results, the remaining 160 search results had median and mean scores of 8. One-quarter of the results were of high quality (score of 10-12). There was no correlation between high-quality scores and early appearance in the sequence of search results, where results are presumably more visible. Also, 496 advertisements, over twice the number of search results, appeared. We conclude that the Google™ search engine may have shortcomings when used to obtain information on dietary supplements and cancer.
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.