The Quality of Online Health-Related Information – an Emergent Consumer Health Issue

1. Sechrest RC. The Internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2566-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3.10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3304963220574803Search in Google Scholar

2. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.00616406474Search in Google Scholar

3. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671-92.10.1093/her/16.6.67111780707Search in Google Scholar

4. 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(20):2691-700.10.1001/jama.287.20.269112020305Search in Google Scholar

5. Kealey E, Berkman CS. The relationship between health information sources and mental models of cancer: findings from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:236-51. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522693.10.1080/10810730.2010.52269321154096Search in Google Scholar

6. Zhang Y. Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2014;65:911–927. doi:10.1002/asi.2302310.1002/asi.23023Search in Google Scholar

7. DiFonzo N, Robinson NM, Suls JM, Rini C. Rumors about cancer: content, sources, coping, transmission, and belief. J Health Commun. 2012;17(9):1099-115. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.665417.10.1080/10810730.2012.66541722724591Search in Google Scholar

8. Weaver III JB, Thompson NJ, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL. Healthcare non-adherence decisions and Internet health information. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009;25(6):1373-80.10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.011Search in Google Scholar

9. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-21.10.1001/jama.285.20.2612418210211368735Search in Google Scholar

10. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, Zapert K, Turner R. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e17.10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17155056414517108Search in Google Scholar

11. Hämeen-Anttila K1, Nordeng H, Kokki E, Jyrkkä J, Lupattelli A, Vainio K, Enlund H. Multiple information sources and consequences of conflicting information about medicine use during pregnancy: a multinational Internet-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e60. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2939.10.2196/jmir.2939Search in Google Scholar

12. Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3778-89. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112Search in Google Scholar

13. Gangarosa E, Galazka A, Wolfe C, Phillips L, Gangarosa R, Miller E, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351(9099):356–61.10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1Search in Google Scholar

14. Bhandari N, Shi Y, Jung K. Seeking health information online: does limited healthcare access matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1113-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350.10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350421503824948558Search in Google Scholar

15. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Internet Project. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf Accessed: September 30, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

16. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2011. Online http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

17. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, et al. European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53.10.1186/1471-2458-7-53185592317425798Search in Google Scholar

18. Euroepan Commission. Information society statistics. Eurostat. Sept. 2010 Online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed: June 14, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

19. TradeAds Interactive. Profilul utilizatorului de Internet – editia II. Bursa de reclamă. 2011. Online: http://blog.tradeads.eu/2011/01/31/profilul-utilizatorului-de-internet-editia-ii/ Accessed: January 31, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

20. Institutul Român pentru Evaluare şi Strategie. Românii şi internetul. Studiu privind utilizarea Internetului şi comportamentul internautic al românilor. 2011. Online: http://www.ires.com.ro/uploads/articole/ires_romanii-si-internetul-2011_analiza.pdf. Accessed: October 1, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

21. Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1600.10.2196/jmir.1600322134221345783Search in Google Scholar

22. Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources--a survey in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(1):186-96.10.1071/AH080186Search in Google Scholar

23. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors among Internet health information seekers: population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e15.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e15155059315249264Search in Google Scholar

24. Demiris G. Consumer Health Informatics: Past, Present, and Future of a Rapidly Evolving Domain. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;Suppl 1:S42-7. doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s005.10.15265/IYS-2016-s005517150927199196Search in Google Scholar

25. Houston TK, Ehrenberger HE. The potential of consumer health informatics. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001;17(1):41-7.10.1053/sonu.2001.2041811236364Search in Google Scholar

26. Hoffmann D, Schwartz J. Stopping deceptive health claims: the need for a private right of action under federal law. Am J Law Med. 2016;42(1):53-84.10.1177/009885881664471527263263Search in Google Scholar

27. Dyer KA. Ethical challenges of medicine and health on the Internet: a review. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E23.10.2196/jmir.3.2.e23176189311720965Search in Google Scholar

28. Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Missing, mediocre, or merely obsolete? An evaluation of UK data sources for coronary heart disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(7):530-5.10.1136/jech.57.7.530173250212821703Search in Google Scholar

29. Rajani R, Mukherjee D, Chambers J. Murmurs: how reliable is information on the internet? Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(1):112-3.10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.06117049389Search in Google Scholar

30. Ching T, Roake JA, Lewis DR. Net-based information on varicose vein treatments: a tangled web. N Z Med J. 2010;123(1323):9-15.Search in Google Scholar

31. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y, Killeen K, Clarke N, Murray K, Waldron B. Gastric cancer-related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):171-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.015.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.01520851373Search in Google Scholar

32. Ream E, Blows E, Scanlon K, Richardson A. An investigation of the quality of breast cancer information provided on the internet by voluntary organisations in Great Britain. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.019.10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.01919179036Search in Google Scholar

33. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):577-81.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5777899511884322Search in Google Scholar

34. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):675-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.006.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.00619095486Search in Google Scholar

35. López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(9):e95-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.017.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.01719457707Search in Google Scholar

36. Dulaney C, Barrett OC, Rais-Bahrami S, Wakefield D, Fiveash J, Dobelbower M. Quality of Prostate Cancer Treatment Information on Cancer Center Websites. Cureus. 2016;8(4):e580. doi: 10.7759/cureus.580.10.7759/cureus.580487600627226941Search in Google Scholar

37. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology. 2009;74(5):1058-63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091.10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091Search in Google Scholar

38. Minzer-Conzetti K, Garzon MC, Haggstrom AN, Horii KA, Mancini AJ, Morel KD, Newell B, Nopper AJ, Frieden IJ. Information about infantile hemangiomas on the Internet: how accurate is it? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):998-1004.10.1016/j.jaad.2007.06.038Search in Google Scholar

39. Pérez-López FR. An evaluation of the contents and quality of menopause information on the World Wide Web. Maturitas. 2004;49(4):276-82.10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.07.006Search in Google Scholar

40. Bedell SE, Agrawal A, Petersen LE. A systematic critique of diabetes on the world wide web for patients and their physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(9-10):687-94.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.011Search in Google Scholar

41. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(3):309-13.10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001Search in Google Scholar

42. McGill JF, Moo TA, Kato M, Hoda R, Allendorf JD, Inabnet WB, Fahey TJ 3rd, Brunaud L, Zarnegar R, Lee JA. World wide what? The quality of information on parathyroid disease available on the Internet. Surgery. 2009;146(6):1123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016.10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016Search in Google Scholar

43. Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M. The quality of nutritional information available on popular websites: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(4):648-55.10.1093/her/cym050Search in Google Scholar

44. Sutherland LA, Wildemuth B, Campbell MK, Haines PS. Unraveling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):300-5.10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60160-7Search in Google Scholar

45. Nădăşan V, Moldovan G, Tarcea M, Ureche R. Edified or confused? How complete and accurate is the information about vitamin B12 on the Romanian Websites? Revista de Igienă şi Sănătate Publică, Timişoara 2011;61(4):49-57.Search in Google Scholar

46. Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1511-5.10.1136/bmj.321.7275.15112755511118181Search in Google Scholar

47. Burneo JG. An evaluation of the quality of epilepsy education on the Canadian World Wide Web. Epilepsy Behav. 2006;8(1):299-302.10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.09.00816275110Search in Google Scholar

48. Tench CM, Clunie GP, Dacre J, Peacock A. An insight into rheumatology resources available on the World Wide Web. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37(11):1233-5.10.1093/rheumatology/37.11.1233Search in Google Scholar

49. Lewiecki EM, Rudolph LA, Kiebzak GM, Chavez JR, Thorpe BM. Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):741-52.10.1007/s00198-005-0042-5Search in Google Scholar

50. Tiller G, Rea S, Silla R, Wood F. Burns first aid information on the Internet. Burns. 2006;32(7):897-901.10.1016/j.burns.2006.02.020Search in Google Scholar

51. Butler DP, Perry F, Shah Z, Leon-Villapalos J. The quality of video information on burn first aid available on YouTube. Burns. 2013;39(5):856-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017.10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017Search in Google Scholar

52. Nădăşan V, Vancea G, Georgescu AP, Tarcea M, Abram Z. The Credibility, Completeness and Accuracy of Information about First Aid in Case of Choking on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2011;6(3):18-26.Search in Google Scholar

53. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, Kubeck J, Gerling MC. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J. 2010;10(4):350-4. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009.10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009Search in Google Scholar

54. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: evaluation of information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):826-9.10.1097/01.brs.0000157754.98023.cdSearch in Google Scholar

55. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(23):2695-700.10.1097/01.brs.0000188266.22041.c2Search in Google Scholar

56. Soot LC, Moneta GL, Edwards JM. Vascular surgery and the Internet: a poor source of patient-oriented information. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(1):84-91.10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70179-5Search in Google Scholar

57. Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, Makary MA, Ko CY. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):580-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.03418926463Search in Google Scholar

58. Nădăşan V, Voidăzan S, Tarcea M, Ureche R. The quality of information about influenza on the Romanian Internet. Acta Medica Transilvanica 2011;2(3):312-4.Search in Google Scholar

59. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 1997; 314:1875–81.10.1136/bmj.314.7098.187521269849224132Search in Google Scholar

60. Nădăşan V, Moldovan O. The Completeness and Accuracy of Information about Coeliac Disease on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2016;11(3):72-83.Search in Google Scholar

61. Lau AY, Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M. Social media in health--what are the safety concerns for health consumers? HIM J. 2012;41(2):30-5.10.1177/183335831204100204Search in Google Scholar

62. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3):e23.10.2196/jmir.1056Search in Google Scholar

63. Fullwood MD, Kecojevic A, Basch CH. Examination of YouTube videos related to synthetic cannabinoids. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;pii:/j/ijamh.ahead-of-print/ijamh-2016-0073/ijamh-2016-0073.xml. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073.10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073Search in Google Scholar

64. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling and filtering of information, BMJ 1998;317:1496-1500.Search in Google Scholar

65. Ahlbrandt J, Brammen D, Majeed RW, Lefering R, Semler SC, Thun S, Walcher F, Röhrig R. Balancing the need for big data and patient data privacy--an IT infrastructure for a decentralized emergency care research database. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:750-4.Search in Google Scholar

66. López L, Green AR, Tan-McGrory A, King R, Betancourt JR. Bridging the digital divide in health care: the role of health information technology in addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(10):437-45.10.1016/S1553-7250(11)37055-9Search in Google Scholar

67. Domanski K, Kleinschmidt KC, Schulte JM, Fleming S, Frazee C, Menendez A, Tavakoli K. Two cases of intoxication with new synthetic opioid, U-47700. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016:1-5. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.120976310.1080/15563650.2016.120976327432224Search in Google Scholar

68. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287(21),2869-71.10.1001/jama.287.21.286912038937Search in Google Scholar

69. Food and Drug Administration. Consumer Health Information. FDA 101: Health Fraud Awareness. May 2009. Online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ProtectYourself/HealthFraud/UCM167504.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

70. National Institute on Aging. Online Health Information: Can You Trust It? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. December 2014. Online: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/online-health-information. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

71. National Cancer Institute. Using Trusted Resources. National Institutes of Health. March 2015. Online: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/managing-care/using-trusted-resources. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

72. Jadad A, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigation to knowledge or to Babel. JAMA 1998;279(8):611-4.10.1001/jama.279.8.6119486757Search in Google Scholar

73. Gagliardi A, Jadad A. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002;324:569-73.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5697899311884320Search in Google Scholar

74. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(1):13-9.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.00115626632Search in Google Scholar

75. Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):598-602.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.598112251711884329Search in Google Scholar

76. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: a review. BMJ 1999; 318:647-9.10.1136/bmj.318.7184.6472777210066209Search in Google Scholar

77. Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Meric-Bernstam F, Johnson C, Mirza NQ, Bernstam EV. Efficacy of Quality Criteria to Identify Potentially Harmful Information: A Cross-sectional Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Web Sites. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(2):e21.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e21155060015249270Search in Google Scholar

78. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.3.e1510.2196/jmir.4.3.e15176194512554546Search in Google Scholar

79. Chiang MF, Cole RG, Gupta S, Kaiser GE, Starren JB. Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(4):394-405.10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.04.00415967193Search in Google Scholar

80. Davis JJ. Disenfranchising the disabled: the inaccessibility of Internet-based health information. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):355-67.10.1080/1081073029000170112356292Search in Google Scholar

81. Oakland T, Lane HB. Language, Reading, and Readability Formulas: Implications for Developing and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing 2004;4(3):239-52.10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3Search in Google Scholar

82. Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR, Miller T, Zheng W. Evaluating online health information: beyond readability formulas. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:394-8.Search in Google Scholar

83. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007:418-22.Search in Google Scholar

84. Leroy G, Miller T. A Balanced Approach to Health Information Evaluation: A Vocabulary-Based Naïve Bayes Classifier and Readability Formulas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2008;59:1409-19.10.1002/asi.20837Search in Google Scholar

85. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-89. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529.10.3109/17538157.2010.54252921332302Search in Google Scholar

86. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.Search in Google Scholar

87. Stausberg J, Fuchs J, Hüsing J, Hirche H. Health care providers on the World Wide Web: quality of presentations of surgical departments in Germany. Med Inform Internet Med. 2001;26(1):17-24.10.1080/14639230010024348Search in Google Scholar

88. Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. A framework for understanding trust factors in web-based health advice. Int J Human-Computer Studies. 2006 64(8):697-713.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.007Search in Google Scholar

89. Health On the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites. Online: http://www.hon.ch/Global/index.html. Accesed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

90. iHealthCoalition. eHealth Code of Ethics. Online: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ehealth-code-of-ethics/. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

91. Kemper DW. Hi-Ethics: Tough principles for earning consumer trust. URAC/Internet Healthcare Coalition. 2001. Online: http://www.imaginologia.com.br/dow/manual/Hi-Ethics.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

92. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: Principles governing AMA websites. JAMA 2000;283:1600–16.10.1001/jama.283.12.1600Search in Google Scholar

93. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. IFPMA Code Of Practice 2012. Online: http://www.lif.se/globalassets/etik/dokument/ifpma_code_of_practice_2012.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

94. DISCERN. Background. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/background_to_discern.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

95. Net Scoring: criteria to assess the quality of Health Internet information. Online: http://www.chu-rouen.fr/netscoring/netscoringeng.html. Accessed: October 05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

96. Boulos MNK, Roudsari AV, Gordon C, Gray JAM. The Use of Quality Benchmarking in Assessing Web Resources for the Dermatology Virtual Branch Library of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) J Med Internet Res 2001;3(1):e5.10.2196/jmir.3.1.e5Search in Google Scholar

97. Eysenbach G. Design and evaluation of consumer health information websites. In: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Jimison H, Stavri Z (eds.): Consumer Health Informatics. Springer New York 2005.10.1007/0-387-27652-1_4Search in Google Scholar

98. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission – URAC. Accreditation Programs - What is URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation? Online: https://www.urac.org/accreditation-and-measurement/accreditation-programs/all-programs/health-web-site/. Accessed: October 05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

99. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives. J Med Internet Res 2001;3(4):e28. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3.4.e2810.2196/jmir.3.4.e28Search in Google Scholar

100. Intute: Medicine including dentistry. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/medicine/. Accessed: 24.06.2011.Search in Google Scholar

101. U.S. National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. About MedlinePlus. Online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aboutmedlineplus.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

102. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONcodeHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/hunt.html, and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/hunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

103. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONselect. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/honselect.html and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/honselect.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

104. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/MedHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/medhunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

105. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONmedia. Online: http://services.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONmedia. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

106. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About healthfinder.gov Online: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

107. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed: October.05.2016.Search in Google Scholar

108. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ Accessed: October 15, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

109. Griffiths KM, Tang TT, Hawking D, Christensen H. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Depression Websites J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e59.10.2196/jmir.7.5.e59Search in Google Scholar

110. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(8):575-82.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.04.001Search in Google Scholar

111. Aphinyanaphongs Y, Fu LD, Aliferis CF. Identifying unproven cancer treatments on the health web: addressing accuracy, generalizability and scalability. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:667-71.Search in Google Scholar

112. MedCIRCLE. Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information. Online: http://www.medcircle.org/about.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

113. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med. 1998;28(5):603-10.10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7Search in Google Scholar

114. Health On the Net Foundation, he HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Conduct.html. Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

115. Health On the Net Foundation, The services offered by HON. Online: http://www.hon.ch/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

116. DISCERN - About this site. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/about.php Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

117. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1999;53:105-11.10.1136/jech.53.2.105175683010396471Search in Google Scholar

118. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004;19:440-6.10.1093/her/cyg04615155597Search in Google Scholar

119. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Coquard O, Fernandez S, Khan R, Billieux J, Zullino D. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-7.10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.01619372023Search in Google Scholar

120. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC). About URAC. Online: http://www.urac.org/about/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

121. Overview of URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation Review. Online: http://www.urac.org/consumers/overview.aspx. Accessed: 26.06.2011.Search in Google Scholar

122. Intute / Frequently asked questions. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/faq.html. Accessed: June 27, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

123. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. Quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net with MedCERTAIN: using a medPICS/RDF/XML metadata structure for implementing eHealth ethics and creating trust globally. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2(2 Suppl):2E1.10.2196/jmir.2.suppl2.e1Search in Google Scholar

124. World Health Organization. WHO proposal would raise quality of internet health information. Press Release WHO/72 November 13, 2000. Online: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-72.html. Accessed: June 26, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

125. Solomonides AE, Mackey TK. Emerging ethical issues in digital health information. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(3):311-22. doi: 10.1017/S0963180114000632.10.1017/S096318011400063226059957Search in Google Scholar

126. Mackey TK, Eysenbach G, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Geissbuhler A, Attaran A. A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information. Global Health. 2014;10:62. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z.10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z417706125283176Search in Google Scholar

127. Mackey TK, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Attaran A. Health domains for sale: the need for global health Internet governance. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e62. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3276.10.2196/jmir.3276396180824598602Search in Google Scholar

128. Alexandru A, Ianculescu M, Jitaru E, Pârvan M. Edusan – Sistem complex integrat privind educaţia pentru sănătate şi profilaxie. Revista Română de Informatică şi Automatică. 2006;16(4).Search in Google Scholar

129. Nădăşan V – O evaluare a calității informațiilor medicale din spațiul virtual românesc, Teză de doctorat, Universitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie Tîrgu Mureş, Nov. 2011.Search in Google Scholar

130. Nădăşan V, Ancuceanu R, Tarcea M, Grosar CM, Ureche R. General characteristics of the Romanian Medical Webscape. Acta Medica Marrisiensis 2011;57(2):94-7.Search in Google Scholar