ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Quality Assessment of Hypertension Treatment-Related Information on WeChat: Cross-sectional Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of telehealth education on self-management in patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a 26-week randomized controlled trial.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Trial
- Efficacy of a WeChat-Based Multimodal Digital Transformation Management Model in New-Onset Mild to Moderate Hypertension: Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- A multi-layer retrieval-augmented large language model framework for enhancing hypertension education.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2026Article
- Impact of E-Coach chronic disease management model combined with the WeChat platform on self-management ability in hypertension patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Information quality assessment and content analysis of dementia prevention on WeChat: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Critical Analysis and Cross-Comparison Between English and Chinese Websites Providing Online Medical Information for Patients With Adenoid Hypertrophy: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Influence of Internet-Based Health Management on Control of Clinical Parameters in Patients With Hypertension: Four-Year Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Quality assessment of temporomandibular disorders-related information on Chinese social media: A cross-sectional study.Digital 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe WeChat platform has become a primary source for medical information in China. However, no study has been conducted to explore the quality of information on WeChat for the treatment of hypertension, the leading chronic condition.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the quality of information in articles on WeChat that are related to hypertension treatment from the aspects of credibility, concreteness, accuracy, and completeness.
methodsWe searched for all information related to hypertension treatment on WeChat based on several inclusion and exclusion criteria. We used 2 tools to evaluate information quality, and 2 independent reviewers performed the assessment with the 2 tools separately. First, we adopted the DISCERN instrument to assess the credibility and concreteness of the treatment information, with the outcomes classified into five grades: excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor. Second, we applied the Chinese Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension (2018 edition) to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the article information with regard to specific medical content. Third, we combined the results from the 2 assessments to arrive at the overall quality of the articles and explored the differences between, and associations of, the 2 independent assessments.
resultsOf the 223 articles that were retrieved, 130 (58.3%) full texts were included. Of these 130 articles, 81 (62.3%) described therapeutic measures for hypertension. The assessment based on the DISCERN instrument reported a mean score of 31.22 (SD 8.46). There were no articles rated excellent (mean score >63); most (111/130, 85.4%) of the articles did not refer to the consequences-in particular, quality of life-of no treatment. For specific medical content, adherence to the Chinese Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension was generally low in terms of accuracy and completeness, and there was much erroneous information. The overall mean quality score was 10.18 (SD 2.22) for the 130 articles, and the scores differed significantly across the 3 types (P=.03) and 5 sources (P=.02). Articles with references achieved higher scores for quality than those reporting none (P<.001). The results from the DISCERN assessment and the medical content scores were highly correlated (ρ=0.58; P<.001).
conclusionsThe quality of hypertension treatment-related information on the WeChat platform is low. Future work is warranted to regulate information sources and strengthen references. For the treatment of hypertension, crucial information on the consequences of no treatment is urgently needed.
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.