Stacy Loeb1, Jacob Taylor2, James F Borin2, Rada Mihalcea3, Veronica Perez-Rosas3, Nataliya Byrne2, Austin L Chiang4, Aisha Langford5. 1. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA; Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: stacyloeb@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
Although there is a large amount of user-generated content about urological health issues on social media, much of this content has not been vetted for information accuracy. In this article, we review the literature on the quality and balance of information on urological health conditions on social networks. Across a wide range of benign and malignant urological conditions, studies show a substantial amount of commercial, biased and/or inaccurate information present on popular social networking sites. The healthcare community should take proactive steps to improve the quality of medical information on social networks. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we examined the spread of misinformation about urological health conditions on social media. We found that a significant amount of the circulating information is commercial, biased or misinformative.
Although there is a large amount of user-generated content about urological health issues on social media, much of this content has not been vetted for information accuracy. In this article, we review the literature on the quality and balance of information on urological health conditions on social networks. Across a wide range of benign and malignant urological conditions, studies show a substantial amount of commercial, biased and/or inaccurate information present on popular social networking sites. The healthcare community should take proactive steps to improve the quality of medical information on social networks. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this review, we examined the spread of misinformation about urological health conditions on social media. We found that a significant amount of the circulating information is commercial, biased or misinformative.
Authors: Rebecca J Power; Jason Hearn; Charlie J Gillis; David Harvey; Christopher French; Michael Organ Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-04 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Christopher J D Wallis; James W F Catto; Antonio Finelli; Adam W Glaser; John L Gore; Stacy Loeb; Todd M Morgan; Alicia K Morgans; Nicolas Mottet; Richard Neal; Tim O'Brien; Anobel Y Odisho; Thomas Powles; Ted A Skolarus; Angela B Smith; Bernadett Szabados; Zachary Klaassen; Daniel E Spratt Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096