RT Journal
A1 Jadad AR, Gagliardi A
T1 Internet health ratings systems: Knowledge vs babel—reply
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1998
FD August 26
VO 280
IS 8
SP 697
OP 699
DO 10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-280-8-jbk0826
UL http://dx.doi.org/10-1001/pubs.JAMA-ISSN-0098-7484-280-8-jbk0826
AB 
We agree with Mr Clarke that it would be desirable to have user-friendly tools to evaluate health information on the Internet and that it may be possible to evaluate such information. We disagree with his third point, as we believe that the Internet can lead to both (not neither) good and harm. Clarke's statements are based on anecdotal discussions. Such statements should be regarded as hypothesis generators not as facts. Confirming or rejecting Clarke's observations will require more methodologically rigorous efforts. We also disagree with Clarke's view of physicians' offices as the bottom line for quality control. In fact, the real situation may indicate the opposite: that most clinicians are facing similar barriers to the adequate use of high-quality information and technology and have insufficient time to address their patients' questions. If physicians' offices were so good, patients would not turn to the Internet for medical information. We certainly need credible evidence on the quality of information exchange in physicians' offices.