Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36096783›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2022

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.

Jenny Stern, Susanne Georgsson, Tommy Carlsson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. User's Search for Information: A Multi-Language Cross-Sectional Assessment of Websites about Healthcare-Associated Infections.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Jenny SternDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, SE-75237, Uppsala, Sweden.
Susanne GeorgssonDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tommy CarlssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, MTC-huset, Dag Hammarskjölds väg 14B, 1 tr, SE-75237, Uppsala, Sweden. tommy.carlsson@kbh.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFollowing the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, adequate public information was of outmost importance. The public used the Web extensively to read information about the pandemic, which placed significant responsibility in, for many, an unfamiliar situation as the disease spread across the globe. The aim of this review was to synthesize the quality of web-based information concerning the coronavirus disease 2019 published during the first year of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND

methodsA rapid systematic review was undertaken by searching five electronic databases (CINAHL, Communication & Mass Media Complete, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus). Empirical infodemiology reports assessing quality of information were included (n = 22). Methodological quality and risk of bias was appraised with tools modified from previous research, while quality assessment scores were synthesized with descriptive statistics. Topics illustrating comprehensiveness were categorized with content analysis.

resultsThe included reports assessed text-based content (n = 13) and videos (n = 9). Most were rated good overall methodological quality (n = 17). In total, the reports evaluated 2,654 websites or videos and utilized 46 assessors. The majority of the reports concluded that websites and videos had poor quality (n = 20). Collectively, readability levels exceeded the recommended sixth grade level. There were large variations in ranges of the reported mean or median quality scores, with 13 of 15 total sample scores being classified as poor or moderate quality. Four studies reported that ≥ 28% of websites contained inaccurate statements. There were large variations in prevalence for the six categories illustrating comprehensiveness.

conclusionThe results highlight quality deficits of web-based information about COVID-19 published during the first year of the pandemic, suggesting a high probability that this hindered the general population from being adequately informed when faced with the new and unfamiliar situation. Future research should address the highlighted quality deficits, identify methods that aid citizens in their information retrieval, and identify interventions that aim to improve the quality of information in the online landscape.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansInfodemiologyInternetResearch ReportCommunicable diseasesCommunicationConsumer health informationCOVID-19Health educationInternetSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID36096783
PMCPMC9467667

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.