News Release

Checklist of claims may signal trouble on internet cancer-treatment sites

Peer-Reviewed Publication

Center for Advancing Health

Asking a few simple questions can help consumers gauge the reliability of Internet information about complementary and alternative cancer treatments, new findings suggest.

"Patients with cancer and other life-threatening conditions often turn to complementary/alternative medicine for a variety of reasons, and a major source of their information is the Internet," write Scott C. Matthews, M.D., and colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

However, the researchers caution, "There is a staggering amount of medical misinformation on the Internet."

The findings appear in the published in the March-April issue of the journal Psychosomatics.

The researchers reviewed 194 Internet sites discussing three complementary/alternative medicine treatments: floressence, an herbal product widely used by cancer patients; amalaki, an herb often used as part of an Ayurvedic cancer-treatment approach; and selenium, a nonherbal treatment often used in complementary cancer treatment.

In their review of the Internet sites, the researchers asked whether the treatments were for sale online, whether the sites provided "patient testimonials," if the treatment was touted as a "cancer cure" and if the treatment claimed to have "no side effects.

A "yes" answer to any of the questions raised a "red flag" for the researchers, suggesting that the Internet site's scientific accuracy was questionable.

The researchers found that more than 90 percent of sites discussing floressence and amalaki -- neither of which have undergone rigorous scientific study -- raised at least one red flag. In contrast, only 23 percent of the sites discussing selenium -- a treatment that has some scientific merit -- raised at least one red flag.

The floressence and amalaki sites with multiple red flags offered large amounts of vague, inaccurate and anecdotal information. Those with no red flags pointed readers to accurate, scientifically based information published in peer-reviewed journals or provided by organizations such as the National Cancer Institute.

Most of the selenium Internet sites, including those with red flags, gave at least some accurate information about selenium use and cancer treatment -- possibly because a large body of research about selenium treatment has been published in scientific journals.

"When patients search the Internet for information on a topic for which there is little objective clinical research, use of these red flag questions may help identify questionable sites," Dr. Matthews and colleagues note. "Internet sites with one or more red flags should be avoided. However, presence of no red flags for any particular site does not ensure scientific accuracy."

###

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Health Behavior News Service: 202-387-2829 or www.hbns.org. Interviews: Contact Dr. Scott Matthews at 858-642-1242 or scmatthews@ucsd.edu. Psychosomatics: Contact Tom Wise, M.D., at 703-698-3626.

BY SUSAN R. FARRER, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
HEALTH BEHAVIOR NEWS SERVICE


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.