Internet Information on Oral Cancer Drugs: a Critical Comparison between Website Providers.

Cancer patients need access to high-quality information, when making decisions about oral cancer drugs. The internet is often used as a source of information published by highly heterogeneous providers. The objective was to evaluate the quality of website providers supplying online information about oral cancer drugs. One hundred websites were analyzed using content-related and formal criteria, selected from three existing evaluation methods used for cancer websites, for medical information (defined by the German Agency for Quality in Medicine), and for the "fact box" tool. A web search by a patient was simulated to identify websites to evaluate. ANOVA was used to assess information provided by non-profit organizations (governmental and non-governmental), online newspapers, for-profit organizations, and private/unknown providers. Content-related quality differences were found between online newspapers and all other categories, with online newspapers ranking significantly lower than for-profit and non-profit websites. As for formal criteria, for-profit providers scored significantly lower than non-profit providers and online newspapers for the aspect of transparency. Internet information on oral cancer drugs published by non-profit organizations constitutes the best available web-based source of information for cancer patients. Health literacy and e-health literacy should be promoted in the public domain to allow patients to reliably apply web-based information. Certification should be required by law to ensure fulfillment of requirements for data reliability and transparency (authorship and funding) before health professionals recommend websites to cancer patients.

Online information on oncologists' and non-medical practitioners' websites in Germany: A critical comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To survey websites of oncologists and non-medical practitioners (NMPs) in Germany regarding range of treated symptoms, diagnostic tools and therapies offered to cancer patients as well as the quality of websites. METHODS: Analysis of 98 websites of oncologists and NMPs was conducted between April and July 2018 with a standardized tool. RESULTS: Range of diagnostic and therapeutic methods was high and differed between both groups. Many NMPs (65.3%) intended to support conventional therapy rather than to treat cancer. Most oncologists (85.7%) did not mention the role of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Texts on oncologists' websites, showed high complexity according to readability analysis using LIX score as opposed to those on NMPs websites that showed medium complexity. Only small difference of quality of websites between both groups could be detected. CONCLUSION: Methods not acknowledged by evidence-based medicine as well as methods at risk for interaction with conventional cancer therapy but also treatment offers with potential benefits for cancer patients were found on NMPs websites. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As evidence-based CAM methods can be a useful support of cancer treatment, risk of herb drug interactions can be minimized by oncologists offering reasonable CAM.