Potential misinformation in websites on carpal tunnel syndrome

Ria Goyal, Grace Corrier, David Ring, Amirreza Fatehi, Sina Ramtin
{"title":"Potential misinformation in websites on carpal tunnel syndrome","authors":"Ria Goyal,&nbsp;Grace Corrier,&nbsp;David Ring,&nbsp;Amirreza Fatehi,&nbsp;Sina Ramtin","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>We sought to evaluate the potential reinforcement of misconceptions in websites discussing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>After removing all cookies to limit personalization, we entered “carpal tunnel syndrome” into five search engines and collected the first 50 results displayed for each search. For each of the 105 unique websites, we recorded publication date, author background, and number of views. The prevalence of potential reinforcement and/or reorientation of misconceptions for each website was then scored using a rubric based on our interpretation of the best current evidence regarding CTS. The informational quality of websites was graded with the DISCERN instrument, a validated tool for assessing online health information.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Every website contained at least one potentially misleading statement in our opinion. The most common misconceptions reference “excessive motion” and “inflammation.” Greater potential reinforcement of misinformation about CTS was associated with fewer page views and lower informational quality scores.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Keeping in mind that this analysis is based on our interpretation of current best evidence, potential misinformation on websites addressing CTS is common and has the potential to increase symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability via reinforcement of unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>The prevalence of patient-directed health information that can increase discomfort and incapability by reinforcing common unhelpful thoughts supports the need for innovations in how we develop, oversee, and evolve healthy online material.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000712/pdfft?md5=fb3d178bc13f6fe0bc2c664eefde13ac&pid=1-s2.0-S2772628224000712-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628224000712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

We sought to evaluate the potential reinforcement of misconceptions in websites discussing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods

After removing all cookies to limit personalization, we entered “carpal tunnel syndrome” into five search engines and collected the first 50 results displayed for each search. For each of the 105 unique websites, we recorded publication date, author background, and number of views. The prevalence of potential reinforcement and/or reorientation of misconceptions for each website was then scored using a rubric based on our interpretation of the best current evidence regarding CTS. The informational quality of websites was graded with the DISCERN instrument, a validated tool for assessing online health information.

Results

Every website contained at least one potentially misleading statement in our opinion. The most common misconceptions reference “excessive motion” and “inflammation.” Greater potential reinforcement of misinformation about CTS was associated with fewer page views and lower informational quality scores.

Conclusions

Keeping in mind that this analysis is based on our interpretation of current best evidence, potential misinformation on websites addressing CTS is common and has the potential to increase symptom intensity and magnitude of incapability via reinforcement of unhelpful thoughts regarding symptoms.

Innovation

The prevalence of patient-directed health information that can increase discomfort and incapability by reinforcing common unhelpful thoughts supports the need for innovations in how we develop, oversee, and evolve healthy online material.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有关腕管综合征的网站中可能存在的错误信息
我们试图评估讨论腕管综合征(CTS)的网站可能强化的误解。方法在移除所有 cookie 以限制个性化后,我们在五个搜索引擎中输入 "腕管综合征",并收集每次搜索显示的前 50 个结果。我们记录了 105 个独特网站中每个网站的发布日期、作者背景和浏览次数。然后,根据我们对当前 CTS 最佳证据的解读,使用评分标准对每个网站可能强化和/或调整误解的普遍程度进行评分。我们使用 DISCERN 工具对网站的信息质量进行了评分,该工具是用于评估在线健康信息的有效工具。最常见的误解是 "过度运动 "和 "炎症"。关于 CTS 的错误信息的潜在强化程度越高,页面浏览量越少,信息质量得分越低。结论考虑到本分析是基于我们对当前最佳证据的解释,因此在涉及 CTS 的网站上,潜在的错误信息很常见,并且有可能通过强化关于症状的无益想法来增加症状强度和丧失能力的程度。创新以患者为导向的健康信息普遍存在,这些信息可能会通过强化常见的无益想法而增加不适感和丧失能力的程度,因此我们有必要在如何开发、监督和发展健康的在线资料方面进行创新。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
期刊最新文献
Measuring professionals' attitudes toward persistent somatic symptoms: Development, validation, and reliability of the professionals' Attitude to Persistent Somatic Symptoms Questionnaire (PAPSS) Tech + touch: A pilot study to facilitate access to health information technology for Spanish-speaking parents Single-encounter elicitation framework for diagnostic excellence patient-reported measures: SEE-Dx-PRM The effectiveness of integrating making every contact count into an undergraduate medical curriculum How often are patients recording their healthcare consultations in Australia and why? An online survey
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1