Original Article

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer

  1. Elmer V. Bernstam MD, MSE1,2,
  2. Muhammad F. Walji PhD1,3,
  3. Smitha Sagaram MBBS, MS1,
  4. Deepak Sagaram MBBS, MS1,
  5. Craig W. Johnson PhD1,
  6. Funda Meric-Bernstam MD4,†,*

Article first published online: 11 FEB 2008

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23308

Issue

Cancer

Cancer

Volume 112, Issue 6, pages 1206–1213, 15 March 2008

Additional Information

How to Cite

Bernstam, E. V., Walji, M. F., Sagaram, S., Sagaram, D., Johnson, C. W. and Meric-Bernstam, F. (2008), Commonly cited website quality criteria are not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about breast cancer. Cancer, 112: 1206–1213. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23308

Author Information

  1. 1

    School of Health Information Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas

  2. 2

    Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas

  3. 3

    Dental Branch, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas

  4. 4

    Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas

  1. †

    Fax: (713) 745-4926

*Department of Surgical Oncology, Unit 444, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 3 MAR 2008
  2. Article first published online: 11 FEB 2008
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 9 OCT 2007
  4. Manuscript Revised: 12 SEP 2007
  5. Manuscript Received: 20 JUL 2007

Funded by

  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Health e-Technologies
  • National Library of Medicine. Grant Number: 5K22LM008306
  • National Center for Research Resources. Grant Number: 1UL1RR024148
  • Interdisciplinary Biosciences Training
  • National Library of Medicine. Grant Number: 5T15LM07093

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (198K)

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Satterlund MJ,McCaul KD,Sandgren AK. Information gathering over time by breast cancer patients. J Med Internet Res. 2003; 5: e15.
  • 2
    Fox S,Rainie L. Vital decisions: how internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2002. Located on URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/
  • 3
    Hesse BW,Nelson DE,Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005; 165: 2618–2624.
  • 4
    Tang PC,Newcomb C. Informing patients: a guide for providing patient health information. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998; 5: 563–570.
  • 5
    Gerber BS,Eiser AR. The patient-physician relationship in the internet age: future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Internet Res. 2001; 3: e15.
  • 6
    Fox S,Rainie L. The online health care revolution: how the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project: Online, 2000. Located on URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/
  • 7
    Helft PR,Hlubocky FJ,Gordon EJ,Ratain MJ,Daugherty C. Hope and the media in advanced cancer patients [abstract]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000; 19. Abstract 2479.
  • 8
    Eisenberg DM,Kessler RC,Van Rompay MI, et al. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both: results from a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135: 344–351.
  • 9
    Berland GK,Elliott MN,Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2612–2621.
  • 10
    Biermann JS,Golladay GJ,Greenfield ML,Baker LH. Evaluation of cancer information on the Internet. Cancer. 1999; 86: 381–390.
    Direct Link:
  • 11
    Meric F,Bernstam EV,Mirza NQ, et al. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002; 324: 577–581.
  • 12
    Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med. 2002; 113: 763–765.
  • 13
    Jadad AR,Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998; 279: 611–614.
  • 14
    Price SL,Hersh WR. Filtering Web pages for quality indicators: an empirical approach to finding high quality consumer health information on the World Wide Web. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999: 911–915.
  • 15
    Bernstam EV,Sagaram S,Walji M,Johnson CW,Meric-Bernstam F. Usability of quality measures for online health information: can commonly used technical quality criteria be reliably assessed? Int J Med Inform. 2005; 74: 675–683.
  • 16
    Bernstam EV,Shelton DM,Walji M,Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005; 74: 13–19.
  • 17
    Walji M,Sagaram S,Sagaram D, et al. Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites. J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6: e21.
  • 18
    Eysenbach G,Kohler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002; 324: 573–577.
  • 19
    Ask an Expert. Available at: http://www.justanswer.com/?r=gagen&gclid=CNGs1e6a9pACFQKHPAodMh703Q. Accessed 2003.
  • 20
    Meric F,Hunt KK. Surgical options for breast cancer. In: HuntKK,RobbG,StromEA,UenoNT, eds. Breast Cancer. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2001.
  • 21
    Breast cancer: treatment guidelines for patients (version V). American Cancer Society and National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2003. Available at: URL:http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/about.asp. Accessed on January 7, 2004.
  • 22
    Smith RA,Saslow D,Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003; 53: 141–169.
    Direct Link:
  • 23
    Meric F,Ross MI. Breast cancer. In: PappasTN,PurcellGP,EubanksWS,TylerDS,VaslefSN, eds. Unbound Surgery [on CD-ROM]. Charlottesville, VA: Unbound Medicine; 2002.
  • 24
    Larzelere RE,Mulaik SA. Single-sample tests for many correlations. Psychological Bulletin. 1977; 84: 557–569.
  • 25
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988.
  • 26
    Silberg WM,Lundberg GD,Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1244–1245.
  • 27
    Bhavnani SK. Why is it difficult to find comprehensive information? Implications of information scatter for search and design. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2005; 56: 989–1003.
    Direct Link:
  • 28
    Crocco AG,Villasis-Keever M,Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. JAMA. 2002; 287: 2869–2871.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (198K)