ArticleBJC reports2024
Alternative cancer clinics' use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients.
Article in BJC reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variation in Quality of Women's Health Topic Information from Systematic Internet Searches.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Source credibility: a necessary North Star in cancer care.BJC reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Alternative cancer clinics, who provide treatment associated with earlier time to death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where alternative cancer clinics can shape their appeal is their Google search results. Methods: We retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent alternative cancer clinics on August 22, 2022. We then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online. Results: Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declared the clinic was an alternative clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included treatment quality ( Conclusions: The favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.
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.