Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics of popular breast cancer related websites and whether more popular sites are of higher quality. DESIGN: The search engine Google was used to generate a list of websites about breast cancer. Google ranks search results by measures of link popularity---the number of links to a site from other sites. The top 200 sites returned in response to the query "breast cancer" were divided into "more popular" and "less popular" subgroups by three different measures of link popularity: Google rank and number of links reported independently by Google and by AltaVista (another search engine). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Type and quality of content. RESULTS: More popular sites according to Google rank were more likely than less popular ones to contain information on ongoing clinical trials (27% v 12%, P=0.01 ), results of trials (12% v 3%, P=0.02), and opportunities for psychosocial adjustment (48% v 23%, P<0.01). These characteristics were also associated with higher number of links as reported by Google and AltaVista. More popular sites by number of linking sites were also more likely to provide updates on other breast cancer research, information on legislation and advocacy, and a message board service. Measures of quality such as display of authorship, attribution or references, currency of information, and disclosure did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Popularity of websites is associated with type rather than quality of content. Sites that include content correlated with popularity may best meet the public's desire for information about breast cancer.

Using citation data to improve retrieval from MEDLINE.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether algorithms developed for the World Wide Web can be applied to the biomedical literature in order to identify articles that are important as well as relevant. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS A direct comparison of eight algorithms: simple PubMed queries, clinical queries (sensitive and specific versions), vector cosine comparison, citation count, journal impact factor, PageRank, and machine learning based on polynomial support vector machines. The objective was to prioritize important articles, defined as being included in a pre-existing bibliography of important literature in surgical oncology. RESULTS Citation-based algorithms were more effective than noncitation-based algorithms at identifying important articles. The most effective strategies were simple citation count and PageRank, which on average identified over six important articles in the first 100 results compared to 0.85 for the best noncitation-based algorithm (p < 0.001). The authors saw similar differences between citation-based and noncitation-based algorithms at 10, 20, 50, 200, 500, and 1,000 results (p < 0.001). Citation lag affects performance of PageRank more than simple citation count. However, in spite of citation lag, citation-based algorithms remain more effective than noncitation-based algorithms. CONCLUSION Algorithms that have proved successful on the World Wide Web can be applied to biomedical information retrieval. Citation-based algorithms can help identify important articles within large sets of relevant results. Further studies are needed to determine whether citation-based algorithms can effectively meet actual user information needs.