Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Jan 10, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 14, 2019 - Feb 27, 2019
Date Accepted: Mar 3, 2019
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Internet-Based Information About Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

Ferreira G, Traeger A, Machado G, O'Keeffe M, Maher C

Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Internet-Based Information About Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e13357

DOI: 10.2196/13357

PMID: 31066689

PMCID: 6529212

Credibility, accuracy and comprehensiveness of Internet-based information about low back pain: a systematic review

  • Giovanni Ferreira; 
  • Adrian Traeger; 
  • Gustavo Machado; 
  • Mary O'Keeffe; 
  • Christopher Maher

ABSTRACT

Background:

Background:

Low back pain (LBP) affects millions of people worldwide, and misconceptions about effective treatment options for this condition are very common. As the Internet has become the primary source of health information for many people.

Objective:

To determine the credibility, accuracy and comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations for LBP in non-commercial, freely accessible websites.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review of websites from Government agencies, consumer organizations, hospitals, non-governmental organizations, professional associations, and universities. We conducted searches on Google. Treatment recommendations were coded based on the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the 2017 American College of Physicians guideline on LBP. Primary outcomes were the credibility of the website (4-item Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark), accuracy (proportion of website treatment recommendations that were appropriate) and comprehensiveness of website treatment recommendations (proportion of guideline treatment recommendations that were appropriately covered by a website).

Results:

We included 79 websites from six English-speaking countries. In terms of credibility, 21.5% of websites clearly disclosed that they had been updated after the publication of the NICE guidelines. Only 487 out of 1125 (43.2%) website treatment recommendations judged as accurate. Comprehensiveness of treatment recommendations correctly covered by websites was very low across all types of LBP. For acute LBP, an average of 4 out of 14 guideline recommendations (28.6%) were correctly covered by websites. Websites for radicular LBP were the least comprehensive, correctly covering an average of 2.3 out of 14 recommendations (16.4%).

Conclusions:

Non-commercial, freely accessible websites demonstrated low credibility standards, provided mostly inaccurate information and lacked comprehensiveness across all types of LBP.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Ferreira G, Traeger A, Machado G, O'Keeffe M, Maher C

Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Internet-Based Information About Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(5):e13357

DOI: 10.2196/13357

PMID: 31066689

PMCID: 6529212

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.