ReviewNutrients2024
Evaluating the Reliability of Health Portals' Nutrition and Supplementation Advice for Pregnant Women: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article evaluates the reliability and consistency of nutrition- and supplementation-related advice for pregnant women provided by ten selected health-related Internet portals. The portals were chosen based on their perceived reliability and prominence in Google searches, with representation from both English and Polish language sources. The evaluation criteria included the adherence of the presented information to official recommendations and its evidence-based character based on specific items representing dietary aspects important in pregnancy. While the overall reliability was deemed acceptable, significant variations existed both among the portals and specific evaluated items. Notably, HealthLine, Medline Plus, and NCEZ emerged as the most evidence-based, while WebMD and Medycyna Praktyczna were identified as less reliable. Despite a number of issues, the analysed portals remain valuable sources of nutritional information for pregnant women, offering user-friendly accessibility superior to alternatives such as social media on the one hand and scientific articles on the other. Improved consistency and attention to detail, especially in relation to vitamin intake and supplementation, would improve the overall quality of health portals.
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.