Author Affiliations: Unit for Cybermedicine and E-Health, Department of Clinical Social Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (Dr Eysenbach); Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England (Dr Powell); Department of Medical Epidemiology, Biometry and Informatics, University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany (Dr Kuss); and Global Health Network Group, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (Ms Sa). Dr Eysenbach is now with the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario.
Context The quality of consumer health information on the World Wide Web is
an important issue for medicine, but to date no systematic and comprehensive
synthesis of the methods and evidence has been performed.
Objectives To establish a methodological framework on how quality on the Web is
evaluated in practice, to determine the heterogeneity of the results and conclusions,
and to compare the methodological rigor of these studies, to determine to
what extent the conclusions depend on the methodology used, and to suggest
future directions for research.
Data Sources We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE (1966 through September 2001), Science
Citation Index (1997 through September 2001), Social Sciences Citation Index
(1997 through September 2001), Arts and Humanities Citation Index (1997 through
September 2001), LISA (1969 through July 2001), CINAHL (1982 through July
2001), PsychINFO (1988 through September 2001), EMBASE (1988 through June
2001), and SIGLE (1980 through June 2001). We also conducted hand searches,
general Internet searches, and a personal bibliographic database search.
Study Selection We included published and unpublished empirical studies in any language
in which investigators searched the Web systematically for specific health
information, evaluated the quality of Web sites or pages, and reported quantitative
results. We screened 7830 citations and retrieved 170 potentially eligible
full articles. A total of 79 distinct studies met the inclusion criteria,
evaluating 5941 health Web sites and 1329 Web pages, and reporting 408 evaluation
results for 86 different quality criteria.
Data Extraction Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, medical
domains, search strategies used, methods and criteria of quality assessment,
results (percentage of sites or pages rated as inadequate pertaining to a
quality criterion), and quality and rigor of study methods and reporting.
Data Synthesis Most frequently used quality criteria used include accuracy, completeness,
readability, design, disclosures, and references provided. Fifty-five studies
(70%) concluded that quality is a problem on the Web, 17 (22%) remained neutral,
and 7 studies (9%) came to a positive conclusion. Positive studies scored
significantly lower in search (P = .02) and evaluation
(P = .04) methods.
Conclusions Due to differences in study methods and rigor, quality criteria, study
population, and topic chosen, study results and conclusions on health-related
Web sites vary widely. Operational definitions of quality criteria are needed.
Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E. Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691–2700. doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: