Editor—Jørgensen and Gøtzsche's study made me yawn: they searched the world wide web on a topic and found no information.1,2 Amazing that the BMJ is still publishing such “infodemiology” studies. That authors affiliated with a Cochrane Centre do not cite a relevant systematic review that could have informed methods and discussion of this study is, however, interesting.3
Some investigators still evaluate websites as if they were information pamphlets. To evaluate the comprehensiveness of a printed pamphlet (where it can be assumed the patient is not using anything else) may make sense, but to evaluate a website under the aspect of completeness does not take into account that people are usually gathering information from different websites.4
Competing interests: None declared.
References
- 1.Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 2004;328: 148. (17 January.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Eysenbach G. Infodemiology: the epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med 2002;113: 763-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287: 2691-700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests and in-depth interviews. BMJ 2002;324: 573-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]