{"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.