Efficacy of quality criteria to identify potentially harmful information: a cross-sectional survey of complementary and alternative medicine web sites

Muhammad Walji, Smitha Sagaram, Deepak Sagaram, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Craig Johnson, Nadeem Q Mirza, Elmer V Bernstam, Muhammad Walji, Smitha Sagaram, Deepak Sagaram, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Craig Johnson, Nadeem Q Mirza, Elmer V Bernstam

Abstract

Background: Many users search the Internet for answers to health questions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a particularly common search topic. Because many CAM therapies do not require a clinician's prescription, false or misleading CAM information may be more dangerous than information about traditional therapies. Many quality criteria have been suggested to filter out potentially harmful online health information. However, assessing the accuracy of CAM information is uniquely challenging since CAM is generally not supported by conventional literature.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine whether domain-independent technical quality criteria can identify potentially harmful online CAM content.

Methods: We analyzed 150 Web sites retrieved from a search for the three most popular herbs: ginseng, ginkgo and St. John's wort and their purported uses on the ten most commonly used search engines. The presence of technical quality criteria as well as potentially harmful statements (commissions) and vital information that should have been mentioned (omissions) was recorded.

Results: Thirty-eight sites (25%) contained statements that could lead to direct physical harm if acted upon. One hundred forty five sites (97%) had omitted information. We found no relationship between technical quality criteria and potentially harmful information.

Conclusions: Current technical quality criteria do not identify potentially harmful CAM information online. Consumers should be warned to use other means of validation or to trust only known sites. Quality criteria that consider the uniqueness of CAM must be developed and validated.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

References

    1. Sagaram S, et al. Inter-observer agreement for quality measures applied to online health information. In: Fieschi M, Coeira E, Li YC, editors. Medinfo. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004. [in press]
    1. Fallis Don, Frické Martin. Indicators of accuracy of consumer health information on the Internet: a study of indicators relating to information for managing fever in children in the home. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Jan;9(1):73–9.
    1. Griffiths K M, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000 Dec 16;321(7275):1511–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1511. .
    1. Martin-facklam Meret, Kostrzewa Michael, Schubert Falk, Gasse Christiane, Haefeli Walter E. Quality markers of drug information on the Internet: an evaluation of sites about St. John's wort. Am J Med. 2002 Dec 15;113(9):740–5. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01256-1.S0002934302012561
    1. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, authors. What is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)? 2002. [2004 Jun 24].
    1. Eisenberg D M, Kessler R C, Van Rompay M I, Kaptchuk T J, Wilkey S A, Appel S, Davis R B. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both: results from a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Sep 4;135(5):344–51. .200109040-00011
    1. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002. May 22, .
    1. Sagaram Smitha, Walji Muhammad, Bernstam Elmer. Evaluating the prevalence, content and readability of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) web pages on the internet. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:672–6.D020002420
    1. Morris Charles A, Avorn Jerry. Internet marketing of herbal products. JAMA. 2003 Sep 17;290(11):1505–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.11.1505.290/11/1505
    1. Ernst E, Schmidt K. 'Alternative' cancer cures via the Internet? Br J Cancer. 2002 Aug 27;87(5):479–80. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600513.
    1. Risk Ahmad, Petersen Carolyn. Health information on the internet: quality issues and international initiatives. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2713–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2713.jed20024
    1. Meric Funda, Bernstam Elmer V, Mirza Nadeem Q, Hunt Kelly K, Ames Frederick C, Ross Merrick I, Kuerer Henry M, Pollock Raphael E, Musen Mark A, Singletary S Eva. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002 Mar 9;324(7337):577–81. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.577. .
    1. Eysenbach Gunther, Köhler Christian. Does the internet harm health? Database of adverse events related to the internet has been set up. BMJ. 2002 Jan 26;324(7331):239. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7331.239.
    1. Sullivan DE. Nielsen netratings search engine ratings. [2003 Feb 7]. .
    1. Most popular herbs and supplements in the United States. [2004 Jun 24]. .
    1. Health Improvement Institute. HIIQA definitions and abbreviations. [2004 Jun 24]. .
    1. HTTrack. [2004 Jun 24].
    1. Eysenbach Gunther, Powell John, Kuss Oliver, Sa Eun-Ryoung. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691–700. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691.jrv10005
    1. Medical Economics Company. PDR for Herbal Medicines. 2. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Company; 2000. .
    1. Sloan Kettering AboutHerbs website. [2003 Apr 25]. .
    1. Berland G K, Elliott M N, Morales L S, Algazy J I, Kravitz R L, Broder M S, Kanouse D E, Muñoz J A, Puyol J A, Lara M, Watkins K E, Yang H, Mcglynn E A. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612–21. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.20.2612.joc02274
    1. Markman Maurie. Safety issues in using complementary and alternative medicine. J Clin Oncol. 2002 Sep 15;20(18 Suppl):39S–41S. .
    1. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, authors. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites. J Med Internet Res. 2002 Nov 29;4(3):e15.
    1. Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin J B. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423–9. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90018-V.
    1. Adler S R, Fosket J R. Disclosing complementary and alternative medicine use in the medical encounter: a qualitative study in women with breast cancer. J Fam Pract. 1999 Jun;48(6):453–8.
    1. Cooke Alison, Gray Lisa. Evaluating the quality of internet-based information about alternative therapies: development of the BIOME guidelines. J Public Health Med. 2002 Dec;24(4):261–7. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/24.4.261.
    1. Silberg W M, Lundberg G D, Musacchio R A. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244–5. doi: 10.1001/jama.277.15.1244.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren