Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Googling children's health: reliability of medical advice on the internet
  1. Paul Scullard,
  2. Clare Peacock,
  3. Patrick Davies
  1. Department of Paediatrics, Nottingham University Hosptials Trust, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paul Scullard, Nottingham GP Speciality Training Programe, Nottingham Univerity Hospitals Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK; pscullard{at}


Aim To assess the reliability and accuracy of medical advice, over a range of types of websites, found using the Google search engine, thus simulating a patient's experience.

Design Advice was sought for five common paediatric questions using the Google search engine. The first 100 results of each question were classified as either being consistent or inconsistent with current recommendations or as ‘no answer given’. Record of the type of site and its visibility was noted.

Results 39% of the 500 sites searched gave correct information; 11% were incorrect and 49% failed to answer the question. Where an answer was available, 78% of sites gave the correct information. The accuracy of information varied depending on the topic and ranged from 51% (mumps, measles and rubella and autism) to 100% (breast feeding with mastitis/the sleeping position of a baby). Governmental sites gave uniformly accurate advice. News sites gave correct advice in 55% of cases. No sponsored sites were encountered that gave the correct advice.

Implications The authors have shown that the advice on the internet is very variable. Patients are known to use the internet for their own research and as such the authors encourage healthcare workers to recommend government or NHS websites.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Funding None.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.