互联网上的消费者健康信息

J. M. Coggan
{"title":"互联网上的消费者健康信息","authors":"J. M. Coggan","doi":"10.1201/9781003249450-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"we applaud the intent of Fallis and Frické 1 in their recent attempt to provide the public with indicators of accuracy for health information on the Internet, we take exception to some of their methods and conclusions. The topic they have chosen to study is certainly an important one. There exists on the Internet a vast amount of health information , and much of it may be incorrect or easy to misinterpret. The authors' call for impartial valida-tors of such information should be cheered. Nevertheless, we have some methodological concerns with their recent study. The first concern involves their choice of clinical subject matter. The authors claim that managing childhood fever in the home was chosen \" because there is a wide consensus among experts in this area. \" 1 This issue is a point of significant contention among pedi-atricians. 2–4 Even the five topics covered in their methods are sure to spark many debates among health care professionals. 5–7 We consider it an important omission that the authors did not provide the \" correct \" answers or cite the experts who provide the consensus to the five topics set forth in the paper. We wonder how much of the information that was labeled inaccurate by the authors was merely a reflection of differences in practice. If this same topic were brought up in a pediatric journal, we believe that reaching a consensus on what is \" correct \" would be difficult. Without clear consensus, there can be no gold standard. Without a gold standard, there can be no measure of accuracy. The second concern is over the methodology used for selection of Web sites. The authors provide no criteria as to how they decided which 100 sites to analyze. Given the enormous number of possible sites, it would be critical to know who selected sites and how they decided which ones to select. Without such information, the study cannot be repeated or understood fully, nor can possible selection bias be ascertained. The third concern we have is the definition of \" accurate \" and \" inaccurate \" sites. The authors arbitrarily set the dividing line between accurate and inaccurate at the median of the sites' ratings. Although they did confirm their results using several different cutoffs , we are concerned with the use of these terms at all. Their accuracy scores range from 0.55 to 0.75, with the vast …","PeriodicalId":306711,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Resources on the Internet","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consumer Health Information on the Internet\",\"authors\":\"J. M. Coggan\",\"doi\":\"10.1201/9781003249450-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"we applaud the intent of Fallis and Frické 1 in their recent attempt to provide the public with indicators of accuracy for health information on the Internet, we take exception to some of their methods and conclusions. The topic they have chosen to study is certainly an important one. There exists on the Internet a vast amount of health information , and much of it may be incorrect or easy to misinterpret. The authors' call for impartial valida-tors of such information should be cheered. Nevertheless, we have some methodological concerns with their recent study. The first concern involves their choice of clinical subject matter. The authors claim that managing childhood fever in the home was chosen \\\" because there is a wide consensus among experts in this area. \\\" 1 This issue is a point of significant contention among pedi-atricians. 2–4 Even the five topics covered in their methods are sure to spark many debates among health care professionals. 5–7 We consider it an important omission that the authors did not provide the \\\" correct \\\" answers or cite the experts who provide the consensus to the five topics set forth in the paper. We wonder how much of the information that was labeled inaccurate by the authors was merely a reflection of differences in practice. If this same topic were brought up in a pediatric journal, we believe that reaching a consensus on what is \\\" correct \\\" would be difficult. Without clear consensus, there can be no gold standard. Without a gold standard, there can be no measure of accuracy. The second concern is over the methodology used for selection of Web sites. The authors provide no criteria as to how they decided which 100 sites to analyze. Given the enormous number of possible sites, it would be critical to know who selected sites and how they decided which ones to select. Without such information, the study cannot be repeated or understood fully, nor can possible selection bias be ascertained. The third concern we have is the definition of \\\" accurate \\\" and \\\" inaccurate \\\" sites. The authors arbitrarily set the dividing line between accurate and inaccurate at the median of the sites' ratings. Although they did confirm their results using several different cutoffs , we are concerned with the use of these terms at all. Their accuracy scores range from 0.55 to 0.75, with the vast …\",\"PeriodicalId\":306711,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Resources on the Internet\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Resources on the Internet\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003249450-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Resources on the Internet","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003249450-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我们赞赏Fallis和frick的意图,他们最近试图为公众提供互联网上健康信息的准确性指标,但我们对他们的一些方法和结论表示反对。他们选择的研究课题当然是一个重要的课题。互联网上有大量的健康信息,其中许多可能是不正确的或容易被误解。作者呼吁对这些信息进行公正的验证,这应该受到欢迎。然而,我们对他们最近的研究有一些方法论上的担忧。首先要考虑的是他们对临床主题的选择。作者声称,选择在家中治疗儿童发烧“是因为这一领域的专家达成了广泛共识。”这个问题是儿科医生之间的一个重要争论点。即使是他们的方法所涵盖的五个主题,也肯定会在卫生保健专业人员中引发许多争论。5-7我们认为这是一个重要的遗漏,作者没有提供“正确”的答案,也没有引用对论文中提出的五个主题提供共识的专家。我们想知道,有多少被作者标记为不准确的信息仅仅是实践差异的反映。如果在儿科杂志上提出同样的话题,我们相信就什么是“正确”达成共识将是困难的。没有明确的共识,就不可能有金本位。没有金本位,就不可能有准确的衡量标准。第二个问题是用于选择网站的方法。作者没有给出他们如何决定分析哪100个站点的标准。考虑到可能的站点数量巨大,了解谁选择了站点以及他们如何决定选择哪些站点将是至关重要的。没有这些信息,研究就不能重复或完全理解,也不能确定可能的选择偏差。第三个问题是“准确”和“不准确”网站的定义。作者在网站评级的中位数上随意设定了准确和不准确的分界线。虽然他们确实使用了几个不同的截止值来证实他们的结果,但我们对这些术语的使用还是很关心的。它们的准确率得分在0.55到0.75之间,其中…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consumer Health Information on the Internet
we applaud the intent of Fallis and Frické 1 in their recent attempt to provide the public with indicators of accuracy for health information on the Internet, we take exception to some of their methods and conclusions. The topic they have chosen to study is certainly an important one. There exists on the Internet a vast amount of health information , and much of it may be incorrect or easy to misinterpret. The authors' call for impartial valida-tors of such information should be cheered. Nevertheless, we have some methodological concerns with their recent study. The first concern involves their choice of clinical subject matter. The authors claim that managing childhood fever in the home was chosen " because there is a wide consensus among experts in this area. " 1 This issue is a point of significant contention among pedi-atricians. 2–4 Even the five topics covered in their methods are sure to spark many debates among health care professionals. 5–7 We consider it an important omission that the authors did not provide the " correct " answers or cite the experts who provide the consensus to the five topics set forth in the paper. We wonder how much of the information that was labeled inaccurate by the authors was merely a reflection of differences in practice. If this same topic were brought up in a pediatric journal, we believe that reaching a consensus on what is " correct " would be difficult. Without clear consensus, there can be no gold standard. Without a gold standard, there can be no measure of accuracy. The second concern is over the methodology used for selection of Web sites. The authors provide no criteria as to how they decided which 100 sites to analyze. Given the enormous number of possible sites, it would be critical to know who selected sites and how they decided which ones to select. Without such information, the study cannot be repeated or understood fully, nor can possible selection bias be ascertained. The third concern we have is the definition of " accurate " and " inaccurate " sites. The authors arbitrarily set the dividing line between accurate and inaccurate at the median of the sites' ratings. Although they did confirm their results using several different cutoffs , we are concerned with the use of these terms at all. Their accuracy scores range from 0.55 to 0.75, with the vast …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信