The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy and self correction of information received from an internet breast cancer list: content analysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In a recent study, the internet proved to be a remarkably effective and accurate mechanism for enhancing peer communication.67”
From Reducing Diagnostic Errors through Effective Communication: Harnessing the Power of Information Technology (2008) · cites this paper as [67]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Therefore, the complexity of digital services, which involve different goals of interaction among different actors, demands a more granular view of value cocreation in online communities [60].”
From Improving the Theoretical Understanding Toward Patient-Driven Health Care Innovation Through Online Value Cocreation: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [60]
In the citing paper
“The study found that most information was accurate and most false or misleading statements were rapidly corrected.”
From Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: Tensions and Controversies in the Field (2008) · cites this paper as [65]
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
Cites
Rating Health Information on the Internet
Jadad, A. R., & Gagliardi, A. R. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.8.611 · Cited by 695
Eisenberg, D. M., Kessler, R. C., Rompay, M. I. V., Kaptchuk, T. J., Wilkey, S. A., Appel, S. M., & Davis, R. B. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-5-200109040-00011 · Cited by 636
Medical information on the internet
Culver, J. D., Gerr, F., & Frumkin, H. (1997) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00084.x · Cited by 185
Information Gathering Over Time by Breast Cancer Patients
Satterlund, M., McCaul, K. D., & Sandgren, A. K. (2003) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5.3.e15 · Cited by 149
Online Help: Cancer Patients Participate in a Computer-Mediated Support Group
Weinberg, N., Schmale, J., Uken, J. S., & Wessel, K. (1996) · Health & Social Work · doi:10.1093/hsw/21.1.24 · Cited by 145
Price, S., & Hersh, W. (1999) · PubMed Central · Cited by 83
McKiernan, J. M., Buttyan, R. E., Bander, N. H., TAILLE, A. D. L., STIFELMAN, M. D., Emanuel, E. R., Bagiella, E., Rubin, M. A., Katz, A. E., Olsson, C. A., et al. (1999) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19990801)86:3 · Cited by 82
Evaluation of support groups for women with breast cancer: importance of the navigator role.
Till, J. E. (2003) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-16 · Cited by 65
Feenberg, A., Licht, J., Kane, K. P., Moran, K., & Smith, R. A. (1996) · Journal of the Neurological Sciences · doi:10.1016/0022-510x(96)00093-7 · Cited by 59
Ferguson, T. (1996) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 56
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Biermann JS, Golladay GJ, Greenfield ML, Baker LH. Evaluation of can- cer information on the Internet [see comments]. Cancer 1999;86:381-90.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social media: A contextual framework to guide research and practice.
McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0039244 · Cited by 414
Social support in an Internet weight loss community
Hwang, K. O., Ottenbacher, A. J., Green, A. P., Cannon-Diehl, M. R., Richardson, O., Bernstam, E. V., & Thomas, E. J. (2010) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.10.003 · Cited by 338
Self-citationManaging the Personal Side of Health: How Patient Expertise Differs from the Expertise of Clinicians
Hartzler, A., & Pratt, W. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1728 · Cited by 259
Using Online Health Communities to Deliver Patient-Centered Care to People With Chronic Conditions
van der Eijk, M., Faber, M. J., Aarts, J. W., Kremer, J. A., Munneke, M., & Bloem, B. R. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2476 · Cited by 238
Is YouTube useful as a source of information for Sjögren's syndrome?
Delli, K., Livas, C., Vissink, A., & Spijkervet, F. (2015) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.12404 · Cited by 238
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC1444809
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
