Who writes this stuff? Musculoskeletal information quality and authorship of popular health websites: A systematic review

Seth Peterson; Nick Rainey; Kirstin Weible

doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102563

Who writes this stuff? Musculoskeletal information quality and authorship of popular health websites: A systematic review

Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2022 Aug:60:102563. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102563. Epub 2022 Apr 13.

Authors

Seth Peterson¹, Nick Rainey², Kirstin Weible³

Affiliations

¹ Arizona School of Health Sciences, A.T. Still University, 5850 E. Still Circle, Mesa, AZ, 85206, USA; Physical Therapist, The Motive Physical Therapy Specialists, 2512 E. Vistoso Commerce Loop, Ste 180, Oro Valley, Arizona, 85755, USA. Electronic address: srpeterson01@atsu.edu.
² Rainey Pain and Performance, 125 S. 2nd Street, Sierra Vista, AZ, 85635, USA. Electronic address: dr.nickrainey@gmail.com.
³ Physical Therapist, The Motive Physical Therapy Specialists, 2512 E. Vistoso Commerce Loop, Ste 180, Oro Valley, Arizona, 85755, USA. Electronic address: kirstin@themotiveaz.com.

PMID: 35453015
DOI: 10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102563

Abstract

Background: Highly trafficked health websites are major sources of information, but the quality of their musculoskeletal information has not been thoroughly evaluated or their authorship characterized.

Objectives: To review information about common musculoskeletal conditions on highly trafficked websites and characterize their credibility, authorship, accuracy of information (as compared to treatment guidelines), and consistency with best practice recommendations.

Design: Systematic review.

Methods: We reviewed the top 15 most highly trafficked health websites, identified by web traffic data. Information about 7 common musculoskeletal conditions was identified and data extracted. Credibility was assessed using the Trust It or Trash It? tool, author backgrounds were identified, accuracy was determined by comparing webpage treatment recommendations to guidelines or systematic reviews, and consistency with best practice recommendations was assessed.

Results: Of 1760 webpages screened, 87 were reviewed. Less than half (44.8%, 39/87) had appropriate sources listed, but 65.5% (57/87) were updated in the previous 5 years. Journalists authored most webpages (55.2%, 48/87). Physician involvement was mostly editorial, and they often lacked expertise in musculoskeletal conditions. Information accuracy was concordant with guidelines for 49.4% (43/87) of webpages, but varied by condition. About half of best practice recommendations were followed (49.1%, 427/870). Pages were unlikely to mention psychosocial factors (16.1%, 14/87), limitations of imaging (18.4%, 16/87), or staying at work (4.6%, 4/87).

Conclusions: Popular health websites scored poorly for credibility, accuracy, and consistency with best practice recommendations for musculoskeletal conditions. Authorship, bias, and unsupported information are potential sources of inaccuracies that should be addressed in future by these websites.

Keywords: Ehealth; Evidence-based practice; Internet health; Orthopaedics; Patient education.

Publication types

Review
Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Authorship*
Humans
Musculoskeletal Diseases*