ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- What Makes an AI Persuasive? The Interaction Effect of AI Shopping Assistants and Algorithmic Recommendation Cues on Consumers' Organic Food Purchase Intention.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Linking Perceived Hospital-Generated Content to Psychological Well-Being Through Integrated Cognitive and Emotional Resilience Mechanisms Among Emerging Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Article
- From scroll to sale: online media engagement predicts adolescents' online supplement purchases in a nationally representative cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Leveraging Influencers to Reach and Engage Vulnerable Individuals With a Digital Health Intervention: Quasi-Experimental Field Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Synthetic Genres: Expert Genres, Non-Specialist Audiences, and Misinformation in the Artificial Intelligence Age.Journal of technical writing and communication · 2025Article
- Clinician Recommendations for Discussing Online Health Information With Adolescents: A Qualitative Study.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adolescents, as active online searchers, have easy access to health information. Much health information they encounter online is of poor quality and even contains potentially harmful health information. The ability to identify the quality of health messages disseminated
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.