Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Matthews, S. C. Articles by Dimsdale, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Matthews, S. C. Articles by Dimsdale, J. E. Cancer Miscellaneous Somatic Therapies

The Internet for Medical Information About Cancer: Help or Hindrance?

Received April 8, 2002; revision received June 24, 2002; accepted July 11, 2002. From the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego. Address reprint requests to Dr. Matthews, 727 Sapphire St. #106, San Diego, CA 92109; scmatthews{at}ucsd.edu (e-mail).

Objective: The authors tested a strategy for screening Internet sites to identify those that provide scientifically accurate information regarding complementary/alternative medicine treatments commonly used by cancer patients. Method: Separate Internet searches were conducted for three complementary/alternative medicine treatments: floressence, amalaki, and selenium. Sites (N=194) were assessed according to four criteria: availability of online purchasing, inclusion of patient testimonials, description of the treatment as a "cancer cure," and description of the treatment as "having no side effects." The presence of any of these criteria was considered a "red flag" denoting questionable scientific accuracy of the site. Sites were categorized based on the number of red flags. MEDLINE searches were performed and peer-reviewed literature used to determine the scientific accuracy of sites. Results: Over 90% of the sites for floressence and amalaki had at least one red flag. In these searches, sites with no red flags provided some scientifically accurate information, while sites with red flags provided a large amount of vague and inaccurate information. Less than one-quarter of sites for selenium had at least one red flag, and sites in this search generally provided scientifically accurate information, regardless of the number of red flags. Conclusions: There is a staggering amount of medical misinformation on the Internet. For cancer treatments that have not been rigorously studied, the red flag criteria offer a rapid way of screening Internet sites for likely scientific accuracy. It may be advisable for patients to avoid sites with one or more red flags.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Tascilar, F. A. de Jong, J. Verweij, and R. H. J. Mathijssen Complementary and Alternative Medicine During Cancer Treatment: Beyond Innocence Oncologist, July 1, 2006; 11(7): 732 - 741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Schmidt and E. Ernst Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer Ann. Onc., May 1, 2004; 15(5): 733 - 742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Eysenbach The Impact of the Internet on Cancer Outcomes CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2003; 53(6): 356 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2003 Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us