PainSci summary of Starman 2010?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★★☆☆?3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.
Researchers evaluated the accuracy of top Internet sources of information about common orthopedic conditions, such as knee injuries and low back pain. Given how they selected websites to review, it’s almost likely that they reviewed this one! What I wouldn’t give to know.
They found that “the quality and content of health information on the internet is highly variable for common sports medicine topics.” Brought to you by the Department of Duh! That conclusion is just a bit of an understatement: there are lots of prominent sites peddling the most astonishing nonsense.
Dr. Steven Novella wrote about this study, commenting specifically on privately run health information sites like PainScience.com:
It is also not surprising that individual sites also scored relatively low on average. An individually run site is only as good as the individual running it, so there is bound to be a great deal of variability. Also, individuals are more likely to make mistakes or have missing information than groups.
~ Paul Ingraham
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
BACKGROUND: Although the use of the Internet to access health information has grown quickly, the emergence of quality controls for health information web sites has been considerably slower. The primary objective of this study was to assess the quality and content of Internet-based information for commonly encountered diagnoses within orthopaedic sports medicine.
METHODS: Ten common diagnoses within the scope of orthopaedic sports medicine were chosen. Custom grading templates were developed for each condition, and they included an assessment of web-site type, the accountability and transparency of the information (Health On the Net Foundation [HON] score), and the information content. Information content was divided into five subcategories: disease summary, pathogenesis, diagnostics, treatment and complications, and outcomes and prognosis. Two popular search engines were used, and the top ten sites from each were independently reviewed by three authors. Data were evaluated for interobserver variability, HON scores, information content scores, and subgroup score comparisons.
RESULTS: After eliminating duplicate sites, a total of 154 unique sites were reviewed. The most common web-site types were commercial (seventy-four sites) and academic (thirty-two sites). Average HON scores, on a 16-point scale, were 9.8, 9.5, and 8.5, for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Average information content scores, on a 100-point scale, were 56.8, 56.0, and 54.8 for reviewers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Average content scores in each subgroup ranged between 45% and 61% of the maximum possible score. The presence of the HONcode seal was associated with significantly higher HON (p = 0.0001) and content scores (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality and content of health information on the Internet is highly variable for common sports medicine topics. Patients should be encouraged to exercise caution and to utilize only well-known sites and those that display the HONcode seal of compliance with transparency and accountability practices.
Specifically regarding Starman 2010:
These six articles on PainScience.com cite Starman 2010 as a source:
- PS Smarter and Funnier — Publication standards for PainScience.com and why you can trust the information published here
- PS Save Yourself from IT Band Syndrome! — All your treatment options for Iliotibial Band Syndrome reviewed in great detail, with clear explanations of recent scientific research supporting every key point
- PS Save Yourself from Low Back Pain! — Low back pain myths debunked and all your treatment options reviewed
- PS Save Yourself from Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome! — Patellofemoral pain syndrome (aka runner’s knee) explained and discussed in great detail, including every imaginable self-treatment option and all the available scientific evidence
- PS Save Yourself from Shin Splints! — Causes and treatment options for shin splints explained and discussed in great detail, especially shin pain caused by myofascial trigger points, compartment syndrome, medial tibial stress syndrome, and stress fracture
- PS Save Yourself from Neck Pain! — A complete guide to chronic neck pain and the disturbing sensation of a “crick”
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- A Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power. Gronau 2017 Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology.
- The neck and headaches. Bogduk 2014 Neurol Clin.
- Agreement of self-reported items and clinically assessed nerve root involvement (or sciatica) in a primary care setting. Konstantinou 2012 Eur Spine J.
- Effect of NSAIDs on Recovery From Acute Skeletal Muscle Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Morelli 2017 Am J Sports Med.
- Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Paige 2017 JAMA.