Social media content analysis for nutraceuticals and glaucoma.

Uday Pratap Singh Parmar, Parul Ichhpujani, Vishal Abhimutt Mahesh, Suresh Kumar
{"title":"Social media content analysis for nutraceuticals and glaucoma.","authors":"Uday Pratap Singh Parmar, Parul Ichhpujani, Vishal Abhimutt Mahesh, Suresh Kumar","doi":"10.22336/rjo.2024.48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Google and various social media platforms have content on the therapeutic potential of nutritional supplements for glaucoma, but whether that information is evidence-based has not been analyzed. The current study explores such content for its quality.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Criteria of search used were \"glaucoma\" and \"vitamins\" or \"nutraceuticals\" or \"nutritional supplements\". The first 30 search results on Google for every keyword combination were determined. The top 30 video results on Facebook Watch and YouTube for each keyword combination were selected. The initial 30 posts from Reddit and the top 30 Images on Google Images related to the keyword combination were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-eight websites on Google, 75 Images from Google, 39 YouTube videos, 12 video results from Facebook Watch, and 19 posts from Reddit were identified and assessed for quality.The average Sandvik scores were 10.86 ± 2.6 (Google webpages), 10.08 ± 1.9 (YouTube videos), 10.62 ± 1.6 (Facebook Watch), and 10.26 ± 2.8 (Posts from Reddit). The average Risk Scores were 0.67 ± 0.9 (videos from YouTube), 0.49 ± 0.8 (webpages on Google), 0.33 ± 0.5 (videos from Facebook Watch), and 0.26 ± 0.5 (Reddit). The mean HON code scores were 5.15 ± 1.5 (YouTube), 6 ± 1.7 (Google webpages), 4.42 ± 1.1 (Facebook Watch), and 3.47 ± 1.8 (Reddit).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Many patients who seek information online do not consult their physicians to verify the accuracy of their search results. Thus, with this changing trend, video and online medical content analysis has attracted interest. Search engines and social media platforms may serve as adjuncts for patient counseling in current care models by providing an online educational community. Compared to non-healthcare professionals, the healthcare professionals' information regarding nutraceuticals/nutritional supplements in glaucoma is of higher quality. Most HCPs do not recommend the use of dietary supplements as a complementary treatment for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive/insufficient data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other. However, literature is building up with each passing day, to support nutritional supplementation as an integrative IOP-independent strategy for glaucoma management.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The information provided by healthcare professionals is superior to that offered by non-healthcare professionals. Most HCPs advise against the use of nutritional supplements as an adjunct therapy for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other.</p>","PeriodicalId":94355,"journal":{"name":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","volume":"68 3","pages":"258-267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503235/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanian journal of ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22336/rjo.2024.48","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

Aim: Google and various social media platforms have content on the therapeutic potential of nutritional supplements for glaucoma, but whether that information is evidence-based has not been analyzed. The current study explores such content for its quality.

Methodology: Criteria of search used were "glaucoma" and "vitamins" or "nutraceuticals" or "nutritional supplements". The first 30 search results on Google for every keyword combination were determined. The top 30 video results on Facebook Watch and YouTube for each keyword combination were selected. The initial 30 posts from Reddit and the top 30 Images on Google Images related to the keyword combination were also examined.

Results: Sixty-eight websites on Google, 75 Images from Google, 39 YouTube videos, 12 video results from Facebook Watch, and 19 posts from Reddit were identified and assessed for quality.The average Sandvik scores were 10.86 ± 2.6 (Google webpages), 10.08 ± 1.9 (YouTube videos), 10.62 ± 1.6 (Facebook Watch), and 10.26 ± 2.8 (Posts from Reddit). The average Risk Scores were 0.67 ± 0.9 (videos from YouTube), 0.49 ± 0.8 (webpages on Google), 0.33 ± 0.5 (videos from Facebook Watch), and 0.26 ± 0.5 (Reddit). The mean HON code scores were 5.15 ± 1.5 (YouTube), 6 ± 1.7 (Google webpages), 4.42 ± 1.1 (Facebook Watch), and 3.47 ± 1.8 (Reddit).

Discussion: Many patients who seek information online do not consult their physicians to verify the accuracy of their search results. Thus, with this changing trend, video and online medical content analysis has attracted interest. Search engines and social media platforms may serve as adjuncts for patient counseling in current care models by providing an online educational community. Compared to non-healthcare professionals, the healthcare professionals' information regarding nutraceuticals/nutritional supplements in glaucoma is of higher quality. Most HCPs do not recommend the use of dietary supplements as a complementary treatment for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive/insufficient data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other. However, literature is building up with each passing day, to support nutritional supplementation as an integrative IOP-independent strategy for glaucoma management.

Conclusion: The information provided by healthcare professionals is superior to that offered by non-healthcare professionals. Most HCPs advise against the use of nutritional supplements as an adjunct therapy for glaucoma, either because of inconclusive data or due to contrasting studies that contradict each other.

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
营养保健品和青光眼的社交媒体内容分析。
目的:谷歌和各种社交媒体平台上都有关于营养补充剂对青光眼的治疗潜力的内容,但这些信息是否以证据为基础尚未进行分析。本研究对这些内容的质量进行了探讨:搜索标准为 "青光眼 "和 "维生素 "或 "营养保健品 "或 "营养补充剂"。确定每个关键词组合在谷歌上搜索结果的前 30 名。针对每个关键词组合,选择 Facebook Watch 和 YouTube 上排名前 30 的视频结果。此外,还检查了 Reddit 上与关键词组合相关的前 30 个帖子和谷歌图片上的前 30 张图片:对 Google 上的 68 个网站、Google 上的 75 张图片、YouTube 上的 39 个视频、Facebook Watch 上的 12 个视频结果和 Reddit 上的 19 个帖子进行了质量评估。平均 Sandvik 得分为 10.86 ± 2.6(Google 网页)、10.08 ± 1.9(YouTube 视频)、10.62 ± 1.6(Facebook Watch)和 10.26 ± 2.8(Reddit 上的帖子)。平均风险分数为 0.67 ± 0.9(YouTube 视频)、0.49 ± 0.8(Google 网页)、0.33 ± 0.5(Facebook 观看视频)和 0.26 ± 0.5(Reddit)。HON代码的平均得分为5.15±1.5(YouTube)、6±1.7(谷歌网页)、4.42±1.1(Facebook Watch)和3.47±1.8(Reddit):许多在网上寻求信息的患者不会向医生咨询,以核实搜索结果的准确性。因此,随着这一趋势的变化,视频和在线医疗内容分析引起了人们的兴趣。搜索引擎和社交媒体平台可通过提供在线教育社区,在当前的护理模式中作为患者咨询的辅助工具。与非医疗保健专业人员相比,医疗保健专业人员关于青光眼营养保健品/营养补充剂的信息质量较高。大多数医护人员并不推荐使用膳食补充剂作为青光眼的辅助治疗方法,原因要么是数据不确定/不充分,要么是研究结果相互矛盾。然而,随着时间的推移,越来越多的文献支持将营养补充剂作为一种不依赖于眼压的青光眼综合治疗策略:结论:医疗保健专业人员提供的信息优于非医疗保健专业人员提供的信息。结论:医疗保健专业人员提供的信息优于非医疗保健专业人员提供的信息。大多数医疗保健专业人员建议不要使用营养补充剂作为青光眼的辅助疗法,原因要么是数据不确定,要么是研究结果相互矛盾。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Optical Density and Polarized Light Microscopy to confirm calcification of Intra-ocular Lens. Progression of corneal thinning and melting after collagen cross-linking for keratoconus. Protecting vision with intraoperative visual evoked potentials and tractography in transcortical brain tumor surgery. A Brief Review on Adult-Onset Coats' Disease. A neural network model for predicting the effectiveness of treatment in patients with neovascular glaucoma associated with diabetes mellitus.
×
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