SynthesisJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2025
Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.
Synthesis in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-Powered Analysis of Weight Loss Reports from Reddit: Unlocking Social Media's Potential in Dietary Assessment.Nutrients · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcerns have been raised regarding the quality of health information published on the World Wide Web, while studies accumulating similar evidence for nutrition-related information are scarce. The present review aimed to systematically accumulate and discuss the findings of studies evaluating the content quality of websites publishing nutrition-related information, based on the PRISMA statement.
methodsStudies that have assessed the accuracy and readability of dietary advice published on websites/webpages were evaluated. The SPIDER framework was used for the systematic search of studies, and those that evaluated websites/webpages that did not contain nutritional information, were videos or social media, referred to health professionals, or contained information on a specific theme (e.g., dietary supplements), were excluded.
resultsTwenty-nine studies were included in this review, assessing information, published mainly in English, on 18 different diet-related topics. Twenty of them classified websites and reported, also, results per category. Inconsistent information has been found on 16%-49.6% of websites, with this percentage rising to 54%-94% in the case of 'weight loss' information. Purely congruent with guidelines information was found on 18%-39.7% of websites. Commercial sites were inferior in terms of quality to the rest. The readability level was estimated as higher than the recommended in 9 out of 11 studies that assessed it.
conclusionsResults of the present systematic review indicate that inaccurate and hard-to-read dietary advice is found on many websites, regardless of the dietary topic.
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.