Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 765–772 | Cite as

Can we trust cancer information on the Internet? – A comparison of interactive cancer risk sites

  • Alexandra Ekman
  • Per Hall
  • Jan-Eric Litton


Objective:To investigate the prevalence and quality of interactive cancer risk sites on the Internet.

Methods:A cancer risk site was defined as a website that gave an estimate of the individual risk of developing cancer. Six search engines and one Meta crawler were used to search the Internet for cancer risk sites (including breast, prostate, colon, and lung cancer). A set of defined quality criteria for health related websites was used to evaluate the websites during 2001 and 2002.

Results:The number of cancer risk sites, as defined above, increased by 50% between 2001 and 2002. Only two out of 22 cancer risk sites fulfilled the quality criteria adequately. No signs of a change in trend (with regard to the quality criteria met) were noted in January 2005

Conclusions:The overall quality of the documentation on the cancer risk sites was poor and no improvement was seen during the study period. The majority of the cancer risk sites do not give reliable risk estimates.


cancer risk internet quality trust risk estimates. 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cyberchondriacs Update The Harris Poll # 19. 2001 [cited 2004; Available from: Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pastore M The Mess Known as Online Healthcare. 2000 [cited 2004; Available from:,1323, 5971_379231,00.htmlGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eysenbach, G, Sa, ER, Diepgen, TL 1999Shopping around the internet today and tomorrow: towards the millennium of cybermedicineBMJ3191294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fox S, Rainie L Vital decisions. How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick 2002 Pew Internet and American Life Project; May 22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, X, Siu, LL 2001Impact of the media and the internet on oncology: survey of cancer patients and oncologists in CanadaJ Clin Oncol1942914297PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox S, Fallows D (2003) Internet Health Resources. Health searchers and e-mailing have become commonplace, but there is room for improvement in searches and overall Internet access. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 16 JulyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    4-Country Survey Finds Most Cyberchondriacs Believe Online Health Care Information Is Trustworthy, Easy to Find and Understand. 2002 [cited; Available from: NewsID=464Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evolution of Internet use for health purposes. 2001 [cited 2004 January 13]; Available from: Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berland, GK, Elliott, MN, Morales, LS,  et al. 2001Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and SpanishJama28526122621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biermann, JSGGJ, Greenfield, MLVH, Baker, L 2000Evaluation of cancer information on the InternetCancer86381390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Impicciatore, P, Pandolfini, C, Casella, N, Bonati, M 1997Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at homeBMJ3141875PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, CT, Smith, CA, Hall, JM, Waters, WB, Biermann, JS 2003Bladder cancer facts: accuracy of information on the InternetJ Urol17017561760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allen, JW, Finch, RJ, Coleman, MG,  et al. 2002The poor quality of information about laparoscopy on the world wide web as indexed by popular search enginesSurg Endosc16170172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meric, F, Bernstam, EV, Mirza, NQ,  et al. 2002Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websitesBmj324577581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox S, Rainie L (2000) The online health care revolution: how the web help Americans take better care of themselves. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 26 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weisbord, SD, Soule, JB, Kimmel, PL 1997Poison on line – acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the InternetN Engl J Med337825827PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Internet Health Coalition. [cited; Available from: http://www.ihealthcoalition.orgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DISCERN. [cited; Available from: Scholar
  19. 19.
    HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for medical and health Web sites. 1997 April 23 2003 [cited; Available from: Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites. 23/06/2003 [cited; Available from: n.htmGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eysenbach, G, Diepgen, TL, Gray, JAM,  et al. 1998Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling, and filtering of informationBMJ31714961502PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benigeri, M, Pluye, P 2003Shortcomings of health information on the InternetHealth Promot Int18381386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jadad, AR, Gagliardi, A 1998Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to babelJAMA279611614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Diaz, JA, Griffith, RA, Ng, JJ,  et al. 2002Patients’ use of the internet for medical informationJ Gen Intern Med17180185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    GLOBOCAN 2000 Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide Version 1.0. 2001 [cited 2004; Available from:Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hälsa på Internet – En granskning av svenska webbplatser 2002: Swedish National Board of Health and Wealfare. Report No.: ISBN:91-7201-659-0Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lawrence, S, Giles, CL 1998Searching the world wide webScience28098100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fallis, D, Fricke, M 2002Indicators of accuracy of consumer health information on the Internet: a study of indicators relating to information for managing fever in children in the homeJ Am Med Inform Assoc97379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    al KSJe Research-Based Web Design and Usability Guidelines 2003: NCI in the U.S Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shon J, Musen MA (1999) The low availability of metadata elements for evaluating the quality of medical information on the world wide web. Proc AMIA Symp: 945–949Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Risk, A, Petersen, C 2002Health information on the internet: quality issues and international initiativesJAMA28727132715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics Karolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations