ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Mapping the quality of information on osteoporosis: a cross-sectional analysis of online health information.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventions to promote critical health literacy: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Co-Creation of Interventions to Promote Critical Health Literacy in the Community: Study Protocol.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Mapping the Quality of German-Language Health Information on the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOsteoporosis is a complex disease with multiple causes and treatments, making access to accurate online health information (OHI) critical for informed decision-making amid rising digitization and misinformation. This study aimed to evaluate whether current OHI on osteoporosis meets the criteria for evidence-based health information (EBHI) to support informed decisions.
methodsWe conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study to evaluate the quality of OHI in German and English. The search terms “osteoporosis” and its German translation were used in Google searches, which were independently screened by two reviewers. An initial exploratory search covering the first five result pages in each language was conducted in March 2021, followed by an extended search in September 2021 that included the first ten pages of results. Websites were included if they targeted laypeople, offered at least two options (including waiting or doing nothing), and were presented in a coherent way. Quality was assessed using the validated “Mapping the Quality of Health Information” (MAPPinfo) checklist. To develop a shared understanding of how the criteria should be applied to the specific health problem of osteoporosis, a subset was independently assessed by two raters, with the remaining assessments conducted individually. Data analysis included the calculation of mean scores (0–100%), which represent the compliance with the EBHI criteria.
results146 websites met the inclusion criteria (81 German, 65 English) and came from various sources, including pharmaceutical companies (30%), hospitals (35%), government agencies (16%), specialist organisations (10%), non-profit organisations (8%), patient organisations (4%), health insurances (3%), and other providers (4%). Websites covered OHI on diagnostics (n = 120), treatment (n = 136), prevention (n = 102), and rehabilitation (n = 1), with 92% addressing multiple areas. On average, the information quality of the OHI is 15.3% (SD = 5.2), 16.7% (SD = 5.7), and 17.4% (SD = 5.6) for diagnostics, treatment, and prevention, respectively.
conclusionsCurrent OHI on osteoporosis often fails to meet basic standards of EBHI, highlighting the urgent need to improve the quality to support informed decision-making. As the use of OHI increases, ensuring that these resources are reliable and evidence-based is critical to improving patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.