ArticlePEC innovation2024
Potential misinformation in websites on carpal tunnel syndrome.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
- Does the Internet Provide Accurate Information About Foregoing Treatment for Common Musculoskeletal Conditions.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We sought to evaluate the potential reinforcement of misconceptions in websites discussing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: After removing all cookies to limit personalization, we entered "carpal tunnel syndrome" into five search engines and collected the first 50 results displayed for each search. For each of the 105 unique websites, we recorded publication date, author background, and number of views. The prevalence of potential reinforcement and/or reorientation of misconceptions for each website was then scored using a rubric based on our interpretation of the best current evidence regarding CTS. The informational quality of websites was graded with the DISCERN instrument, a validated tool for assessing online health information. Results: Every website contained at least one potentially misleading statement in our opinion. The most common misconceptions reference "excessive motion" and "inflammation." Greater potential reinforcement of misinformation about CTS was associated with fewer page views and lower informational quality scores. Conclusions: Keeping in mind that this analysis is based on our interpretation of current best evidence, potential misinformation on websites addressing CTS is common and has the potential to increase symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability via reinforcement of unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms. Innovation: The prevalence of patient-directed health information that can increase discomfort and incapability by reinforcing common unhelpful thoughts supports the need for innovations in how we develop, oversee, and evolve healthy online material.
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.