ArticleCureus2025
Exploring Alzheimer's Awareness: A Content Quality and Reliability Assessment.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with significant public health implications. Social media platforms like Instagram have emerged as influential tools for health communication, yet the quality and reliability of content remain variable. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the nature, accuracy, reliability, and overall educational quality of AD-related content disseminated on Instagram, to determine whether the information provided is evidence-based, appropriately sourced, and suitable for public health education. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted over 20 days in January 2025, analyzing posts from six popular Alzheimer's-related hashtags. A total of 600 posts were screened, of which 288 met the inclusion criteria. Posts were assessed for type, uploader category, content category, factual accuracy, Global Quality Score (GQS), and Reliability Score. Statistical comparisons were made between two groups of posts based on content accuracy and quality. Among the 288 posts analyzed, 162 (56.25%) were images and 126 (43.75%) were videos. Doctors (90, 30.94%) and researchers (82, 28.47%) were the most common uploaders. The majority of posts focused on etiology (66, 22.19%), prevention (60, 20.88%), and symptoms (60, 20.88%). Only 120 (51.9%) posts in Group A were factually accurate, compared to 22 (38.59%) in Group B (
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.