“Fake news” in dermatology. Results from an observational, cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Background Social networks have become a means for disseminating information on health‐related matters. Objective Describe the characteristics and analyze the accuracy of the dermatology content that is most often shared on the most popular social networks. Materials and methods The content most often shared on social networks (Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Reddit) between March 2019 and March 2020 was analyzed using the keywords: acne, alopecia/hair loss, psoriasis, eczema, melanoma, skin cancer, rash, and rosacea. The total number of interactions, skin disease, topic, and origin was collected from each of the records. The content was analyzed and was categorized as precise, confusing, or imprecise based on the scientific evidence available. Results A total of 385 websites were included. About 44.7% of the shared content was rated as imprecise, 20% as confusing, and 35.3% as precise. The records classified as imprecise obtained a higher mean number of interactions (P < 0.05). No differences were found in terms of the level of certainty and the dermatosis studied, whereas they did exist in relation to their topic and origin (P < 0.001). Of the contents classified as imprecise, the most frequent topic and origin were "alternative medicines" and "individual opinions, articles not affiliated with health institutions, nor peer reviewed," respectively. Conclusions The majority of the contents often shared on social networks are below acceptable quality standards. Strategies are needed to discredit imprecise information and promote the dissemination of evidence‐based dermatology information.

What's #Trending: embracing social media in dermatology

“…Iglesias-Puzas et al, in an analysis of 385 websites, found that 44.7% of content shared on social media was rated as imprecise, 20% as confusing, and 35.3% as precise. 2 These findings were similar to Mueller et al's study, where 63% of YouTube videos related to psoriasis were classified as misleading or dangerous. 3 Another cross-sectional study analyzing YouTube videos on acne and acne treatment also demonstrated that non-healthcare sources were less accurate (Accuracy in Digital-health Instrument [ANDI]: 2.40 AE 0.14 vs. 2.97 AE 0.28, P = 0.041), and were of lower quality in content (Global Quality Scale [GQS]: 2.73 AE 0.11 vs. 3.39 AE 0.27, P = 0.020).…”

“…Dermatologists can also play critical roles in managing misinformation that may arise from social media use. Iglesias‐Puzas et al., in an analysis of 385 websites, found that 44.7% of content shared on social media was rated as imprecise, 20% as confusing, and 35.3% as precise 2 . These findings were similar to Mueller et al.…”

Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review

“…This latter approach has recently been adapted in the digital space through podcasts [ 54 ], mobile applications [ 55 ], and YouTube video material [ 56 ]. Moreover, the use of relevant PSG websites and social networking websites has become incredibly important to advocate research in patient communities to disseminate study results to patients, carers, and the public [ 57 ].…”

Navigating internet-based misinformation with patients in the clinic

“…-Dr Conscientious Dear Dr Conscientious: Medical misinformation often generates more interest among patients than researched information and is amplified on social media and search engines. 1 Dermatology is particularly susceptible to misinformation: long wait times can lead patients to scour the internet for remedies, and the lack of treatment guidelines for many conditions has led to nontraditional therapies. Sometimes, medical misinformation can influence patient preferences for treatment, as in the vignette.…”