Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34792471›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2021

Assessing the Quality of Online Health Information About Breast Cancer from Chinese Language Websites: Quality Assessment Survey.

Weiwei Sun, Aijing Luo, Zhiwei Bian, Bin Zhao, Peng Liu, Kai Wang, Yuwen Liu, Wenzhao Xie, Fuzhi Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Weiwei Sun *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4169-6492
Aijing Luo *The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5890-3470
Zhiwei Bian *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0446-2133
Bin Zhao *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1300-8602
Peng Liu *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1677-7044
Kai Wang *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9098-3017
Yuwen Liu *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2572-5863
Wenzhao XieKey Laboratory of Medical Information Research, College of Hunan Province, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8685-3255
Fuzhi Wang *School of Health Management, Bengbu Medical College, Bengbu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4180-6572
Bengbu Medical College · CNCentral South University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn China, the internet has become one of the most important ways to obtain information about breast cancer. However, quantitative evaluations of the quality of Chinese health websites and the breast cancer treatment information they publish are lacking.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of Chinese breast cancer websites and the value, suitability, and accuracy of the breast cancer treatment information they publish.

methodsChinese breast cancer health websites were searched and manually screened according to their Alexa and Baidu search engine rankings. For each website included in the survey, which was conducted on April 8, 2019, the three most recently published papers on the website that met the inclusion criteria were included for evaluation. Three raters assessed all materials using the LIDA, DISCERN, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tools and the Michigan Checklist. Data analysis was completed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2010.

resultsThis survey included 20 Chinese breast cancer websites and 60 papers on breast cancer treatment. The LIDA tool was used to evaluate the quality of the 20 websites. The LIDA's scores of the websites (mean=54.85, SD 3.498; total possible score=81) were low. In terms of the layout, color scheme, search facility, browsing facility, integration of nontextual media, submission of comments, declaration of objectives, content production method, and robust method, more than half of the websites scored 0 (never) or 1 (sometimes). For the online breast cancer treatment papers, the scores were generally low. Regarding suitability, 32 (53.33%) papers were evaluated as presenting unsuitable material. Regarding accuracy, the problems were that the papers were largely not original (44/60, 73%) and lacked references (46/60, 77%).

conclusionsThe quality of Chinese breast cancer websites is poor. The color schemes, text settings, user comment submission functions, and language designs should be improved. The quality of Chinese online breast cancer treatment information is poor; the information has little value to users, and pictorial information is scarcely used. The online breast cancer treatment information is accurate but lacks originality and references. Website developers, governments, and medical professionals should play a full role in the design of health websites, the regulation of online health information, and the use of online health information.

Indexed as

breast cancerChinese language websitesonline health informationquantitative evaluations

Identifiers

PMID34792471
PMCPMC8663447
OpenAlexW3210196061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.