CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationOvarian function and disorders

Polycystic ovary syndrome: Double click and right check. What do patients learn from the Internet about PCOS?

Mousiolis, Athanasios, Michala, Lina, Antsaklis, Aris·2012·European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
DOI 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.03.028
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To identify the websites most visited by patients regarding polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and to evaluate the quality of information provided by these websites.Study design We sought data regarding the popularity of sites providing information about PCOS regardless of the way the visitors reached the site. We then scrutinized the top sites for predefined quality check points to evaluate the quality of information provided, including Health on Net Foundation (HON) accreditation. Finally, we searched for the expansion of these sites in social networks (Facebook and Twitter).Results Of the top 15 sites, 8 were HONcode certified. The mean performance of content presence for all sites was 7.33 (min=4, max=10, SD=1.633). There was a moderate correlation of higher performance score with HON accreditation (R: 0.535, p<0.05). Several sites have expanded in social media. None of the high-score sites has a page dedicated to PCOS.Conclusions There exists a lack of HON accreditation in many sites and a wide variability in the quality of the information provided. In some cases, key elements of content, necessary for complete appreciation of PCOS, are missing. Official and high authority healthcare organisms should introduce themselves in the social media world.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.03.028

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • 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 [94]

  • 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 [94]

  • 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 [94]

  • 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 [94]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mousiolis, A., Michala, L., & Antsaklis, A.
Affiliations
Alexandra Hospital (GR)
Corresponding author
Mousiolis, Athanasios
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-07
Volume
163
Issue
1
Pages
43-46
ISSN
  • 0028-2243 (ISSN-L)
  • 0301-2115
DOI
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.03.028
OpenAlex
W2036648359
Cited by
30
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, patient information websites, online health information quality, social media, Facebook, Twitter
MeSH terms
Certification, Female, Humans, Medical Informatics, Patient Education as Topic, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Internet, Social Media

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