Dissemination of 'patient-oriented evidence that matters' on the Internet: The case of Type 2 diabetes treatment

Diabetic Medicine

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 688-692

  Giménez Pérez, Gabriel ^a,b   Caixas A ^a   Gimenez Palop O ^a   Gonzalez Clemente J M ^a   Mauricio, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL DE SABADELL   (Spain)

Author keywords

Evidence based information; Internet; Type 2 diabetes

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; INSULIN; METFORMIN; SULFONYLUREA;

ARTICLE; BLOOD GLUCOSE MONITORING; BLOOD PRESSURE; BLOOD PRESSURE REGULATION; COMPUTER; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; OBESITY; PATIENT INFORMATION; QUALITY OF LIFE;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNET; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 20444369961     PISSN: 07423071     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01522.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. Br Med J 1998; 317: 225-226.
2. Mülhauser I, Berger M. Evidence-based patient information in diabetes. Diabet Med 2000; 17: 823-829.
3. Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Bennett JH. Becoming an information master: a guidebook to the medical information jungle. J Fam Pract 1994; 39: 489-499.
4. UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with Type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 1998; 352: 837-853.
5. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in Type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. Br Med J 1998; 317: 703-713.
6. Goldner MG, Knatterud GL, Prout TE. Effects of hypoglycemic agents on vascular complicarions in patients with adult-onset diabetes. 3. Clinical implications of UGDP results. J Am Med Assoc 1971; 218: 1400-1410.
7. Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC. What happened to the valid POEMs? A survey of review articles on the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Br Med J 2003; 327: 266-270.
8. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K et al. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national US survey among, 1050 US physicians. J Medical Internet Research 2003; 5: e17. Available from: http://www.jmir.org/2003/3/e17.
9. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI et al. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. Br Med J 2002; 324: 577-581.
10. 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: 105-111.
11. Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the Internet age. J Medical Internet Research 2001; 3: e19. Available from: http://www.jmir.Org/2001/2/e19.
12. Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003; 50: 151-155.
13. Siegel S, Castellan's JN. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988.
14. Ewart RM. The case against aggressive treatment of type 2 diabetes: critique of the UK prospective diabetes study. Br Med J 2001; 323: 854-858.
15. Working Party of the International Diabetes Federation (European Region). Hypertension in people with Type 2 diabetes: knowledge-based diabetes-specific guidelines. Diabet Med 2003; 20: 972-987.
16. Fox S, Fallows D. Health searches and email have become more commonplace, but there is room for improvement in searches and overall Internet access. Washington DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2003. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/ PIP_Health_Report_July_2003.pdf.
17. 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. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 2691-2700.
18. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. J Am Med Assoc 2001; 285: 2612-2621.
19. Craigie M, Loader B, Burrows R, Muncer S. Reliability of health information on the Internet: an examination of experts' ratings. J Medical Internet Research 2002; 4: e2. Available from: http://www.jmir.org/ 2002/1/e2/.
20. Hansen D, Derry H, Resnick P, Richardson C. Adolescents searching for health information on the Internet: an observational study. J Medical Internet Research 2003; 5: e25. Available from: http:// www.jmir.org/2003/4/e25.
21. McCormack J, Greenhalgh T. Seeing what you want to see in randomised controlled trials: versions and perversions of UKPDS data. Br Med J 2000; 320: 1720-1723.
22. Sigouin C, Jadad AR. Awareness of sources of peer-reviewed research evidence on the Internet. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 287: 2867-2869.