CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityOvarian function and disordersSocial Media in Health Education

Polycystic ovaries: Review of medical information on the internet for patients

Mallappa Saroja, Channamallikarjuna Swamy, Hanji Chandrashekar, Sapna·2010·Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
DOI 10.1007/s00404-010-1378-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Often, internet can bring a sense of anxiety rather than information and understanding to the patient. Our aim was to assess the quality of information available for patients on the management of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) on the internet.Materials and methods Five search engines were searched using phrases 'PCOS and 'patient information'. Various parameters of quality that were assessed were source, currency and editorial review process (for credibility) and hierarchy and accuracy of evidence (for content of the websites).Results Fifteen relevant websites were located, none of which complied with all the criteria for quality. Complete information on PCOS was not provided by any of the website to women according to the quality criteria.Conclusions With 1,000 of websites launched everyday, it is difficult for patients to determine which website is trustworthy and valid. Patients need to be watchful about quality of the information on medical conditions in the internet.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00404-010-1378-4

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 2010 study revealed that only two of the websites correctly described the criteria for PCOS diagnosis.

    “The 2010 study also revealed that only two of the websites correctly described the criteria for PCOS diagnosis [95].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

  • The majority (n = 5) of website studies involved analysis of content from search engine results.

    “The majority (n = 5) involved analysis of content from search engine results [46,47,91,94,95], while one each looked at content in teen and women’s digital magazines [93], French language internet forums [90], and a specific PCOS-related website [92].”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

  • Search engine results reported in studies published in 2010 and 2012 included 15 websites each.

    “Search engine results reported in studies published in 2010 [95] and 2012 [94] included 15 websites each, with all but two Australian websites originating from either the USA or the UK.”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

  • In the 2010 and 2012 search engine studies, all but two Australian websites originated from either the USA or the UK.

    “Search engine results reported in studies published in 2010 [95] and 2012 [94] included 15 websites each, with all but two Australian websites originating from either the USA or the UK.”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

  • Eight included studies in the scoping review related to PCOS content on websites.

    “Eight included studies related to PCOS content on websites [46,47,90,91,92,93,94,95] (Supplementary File S3).”

    From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and the Internet of Things: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as [95]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mallappa Saroja, C. S., & Hanji Chandrashekar, S.
Venue
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-02-09
Volume
281
Issue
5
Pages
839-843
ISSN
  • 0003-9128 (ISSN-L)
  • 0932-0067
  • 1432-0711
DOI
10.1007/s00404-010-1378-4
OpenAlex
W1997220665
Cited by
16
References
19
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, patient information websites, online health information quality, information credibility, evidence hierarchy, editorial review, patient anxiety, PCOS management
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Internet

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