Cited by 216Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMisinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media in Health Education

Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis

Open access
Esquivel, Adol, Meric-Bernstam, Funda, Bernstam, Elmer V·2006·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of false or misleading statements in messages posted by internet cancer support groups and whether these statements were identified as false or misleading and corrected by other participants in subsequent postings. DESIGN: Analysis of content of postings. SETTING: Internet cancer support group Breast Cancer Mailing List. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of false or misleading statements posted from 1 January to 23 April 2005 and whether these were identified and corrected by participants in subsequent postings. RESULTS: 10 of 4600 postings (0.22%) were found to be false or misleading. Of these, seven were identified as false or misleading by other participants and corrected within an average of four hours and 33 minutes (maximum, nine hours and nine minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Most posted information on breast cancer was accurate. Most false or misleading statements were rapidly corrected by participants in subsequent postings.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.38753.524201.7c

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Esquivel, A., Meric-Bernstam, F., & Bernstam, E. V.
Affiliations
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Bernstam, Elmer V
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-03-02
Volume
332
Issue
7547
Pages
939-942
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2047208377
Cited by
216
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
FWCI
26.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k22lm008306-03)
  • National Cancer Institute (1K08CA91895)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (5K22LM008306)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
breast cancer, mailing lists, misinformation, self-correction, peer correction, online health information
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Information Services, Self-Help Groups, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Electronic Mail

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