The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Analysis of Cases of Harm Associated With Use of Health Information on the Internet
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is concern about the potential harm associated with the use of poor quality health information on the Internet. To date, there have been no systematic attempts to examine reported cases of such harm. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, to evaluate the number and characteristics of reported cases of harm associated with the use of health information obtained on the Internet. Using a refined strategy, we searched MEDLINE (from 1966 to February 2001), CINAHL (from 1982 to March 2001), HealthStar (from 1975 to December 2000), PsycINFO (from 1967 to March 2001), and EMBASE (from 1980 to March 2001). This was complemented with searches of reference lists. Two authors separately reviewed the abstracts to identify articles that describe at least 1 case of harm associated with the use of health information found on the Internet. Articles of any format and in any language deemed possibly relevant by either researcher were obtained and reviewed by both researches. RESULTS: The search yielded 1512 abstracts. Of these 186 papers were reviewed in full text. Of these, 3 articles satisfied the selection criteria. One article described 2 cases in which improper Internet searches led to emotional harm. The second article described dogs being poisoned because of misinformation obtained on the Internet. The third article described hepatorenal failure in an oncology patient who obtained misinformation about the use of medication on the Internet. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the popularity of publications warning of the potential harm associated with using health information from the Internet, our search found few reported cases of harm. This may be due to an actual low risk for harm associated with the use of information available on the Internet, to underreporting of cases, or to bias.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bernard, A., Langille, M., Hughes, S., Rose, C., Leddin, D., & Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. (2007) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x · Cited by 1,197
Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations
Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127 · Cited by 1,170
Sharing Health Data for Better Outcomes on PatientsLikeMe
Wicks, P., Massagli, M., Frost, J., Brownstein, C., Okun, S., Vaughan, T., Bradley, R., & Heywood, J. (2010) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1549 · Cited by 603
Pravikoff, D. S., Tanner, A. B., & Pierce, S. T. (2005) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/00000446-200509000-00025 · Cited by 580
Broom, A. (2005) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732304272916 · Cited by 451
Metadata
- Authors
- Crocco, A. G.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-06-05
- Volume
- 287
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2869
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2147749164
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Analysis of Cases of Harm Associated With Use of Health Information on the Internet. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.287.21.2869
- The paper
- Crocco, A. G. (2002). Analysis of Cases of Harm Associated With Use of Health Information on the Internet. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2869
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.