ArticleJMIR cancer2024
Evaluating the Quality of Cancer-Related WeChat Public Accounts: Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWeChat (Tencent) is one of the most important information sources for Chinese people. Relevantly, various health-related data are constantly transmitted among WeChat users. WeChat public accounts (WPAs) for health are rapidly emerging. Health-related WeChat public accounts have a significant impact on public health. Because of the rise in web-based health-seeking behavior, the general public has grown accustomed to obtaining cancer information from WPAs. Although WPAs make it easy for people to obtain health information, the quality of the information is questionable.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the quality and suitability of cancer-related WeChat public accounts (CWPAs).
methodsThe survey was conducted from February 1 to 28, 2023. Based on the WPA monthly list provided by Qingbo Big Data, 28 CWPAs in the WeChat communication index were selected as the survey sample. Quality assessment of the included CWPAs was performed using the HONcode instrument. Furthermore, suitability was measured by using the Suitability Assessment of Materials. A total of 2 researchers conducted the evaluations independently.
resultsOf the 28 CWPAs, 12 (43%) were academic and 16 (57%) were commercial. No statistical difference was found regarding the HONcode scores between the 2 groups (P=.96). The quality of the academic and commercial CWPAs evaluated using the HONcode instrument demonstrated mean scores of 5.58 (SD 2.02) and 5.63 (SD 2.16), respectively, corresponding to a moderate class. All CWPAs' compliance with the HONcode principles was unsatisfactory. A statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was observed in the Suitability Assessment of Materials scores (P=.04). The commercial WPAs reached an overall 55.1% (SD 5.5%) score versus the 50.2% (SD 6.4%) score reached by academic WPAs. The suitability of academic and commercial CWPAs was considered adequate.
conclusionsThis study revealed that CWPAs are not sufficiently credible. WPA owners must endeavor to create reliable health websites using approved tools such as the HONcode criteria. However, it is necessary to educate the public about the evaluation tools of health websites to assess their credibility before using the provided content. In addition, improving readability will allow the public to read and understand the content.
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.