SynthesisPublic health nutrition2023
Quality and accuracy of online nutrition-related information: a systematic review of content analysis studies.
Synthesis in Public health nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the effectiveness of animated videos and talking-head videos in science communication.British journal of health psychology · 2025Trial
- Good science, poor visibility? Communicating behavioural nutrition and physical activity evidence in the algorithmic attention economy.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of early and late recurrence rates in perianal fistula surgery.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Perceptions of AI-generated informational texts and effects of the source: An online experiment.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Digital Food and Nutrition Literacy Survey to Support Improvements in Diet Quality.Current developments in nutrition · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Observational
- Artificial intelligence attitudes in relation to Mediterranean diet adherence and environmental footprints: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Mapping Knowledge Gaps: A Needs Assessment of Sorghum, Whole Grains Knowledge and Prediabetes Risk.Nutrients · 2026Article
- An Analysis of the Nutritional Value of Diets Generated by Large Language Models Under Average User Conditions-3(LM)Diet Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Healthy or misleading? A study of food outlets categorised as 'healthy' on an Australian delivery platform.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Association between sources of nutrition information and self-perceived nutrition competence of healthcare professionals: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- American, British, and Italian Online Information on the Health Risks Associated With Eating Meat: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- The New Obesity Treatment Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities to Promote Shared Decision-Making in People With Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Validity and reliability of ChatGPT's responses on dietary supplements in Japan: A quality assessment and content analysis.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Development of a Validated Lay Checklist (Info Without Side Effects) for Assessing Health Information on Websites: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Examining the spread of nutrition-based misinformation by TikTok influencers: an experimental analysis of trust among young adults.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to summarise the level of quality and accuracy of nutrition-related information on websites and social media and determine if quality and accuracy varied between websites and social media or publishers of information.
designThis systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021224277). CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Academic Search Complete were systematically searched on 15 January 2021 to identify content analysis studies, published in English after 1989, that evaluated the quality and/or accuracy of nutrition-related information published on websites or social media. A coding framework was used to classify studies' findings about information quality and/or accuracy as poor, good, moderate or varied. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist was used to assess the risk of bias.
settingN/A.
participantsN/A.
resultsFrom 10 482 articles retrieved, sixty-four were included. Most studies evaluated information from websites (
conclusionOnline nutrition-related information is often inaccurate and of low quality. Consumers seeking information online are at risk of being misinformed. More action is needed to improve the public's eHealth and media literacy and the reliability of online nutrition-related information.
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.