Can urticaria images found on the internet be a source of health information?
Main Article Content
Keywords
angioedema, Google Images, internet, photography, urticaria
Abstract
Background: In parallel with technological developments, patients increasingly benefit from information and communication technologies.
Objective: The aim was to evaluate urticaria images that are available on the internet in two different languages.
Materials and methods: The terms “urticaria” and “ürtiker” were used as search terms on Google Images. One hundred images were saved for each term, and each image was opened via its link. Two specialists in immunology and allergy jointly assessed the uploader information, pixel resolution, characteristics of the urticarial lesions, and image quality of the photos.
Results: A total of 178 images were included, with 87 from the “urticaria” search term and 91 from the “ürtiker” search term—71.3% images had isolated urticaria, 1.7% had isolated angioedema, 0.6% had both urticaria and angioedema, and 26.4% had neither urticaria nor angioedema; 131 photographs depicting urticaria and/or angioedema were analyzed. The majority of urticarial plaques were erythematous (84%), with extremities (32.1%) being the most commonly affected area. Images in the preview on Google Images appeared more blurred and of lower resolution than the images after opening the link (n:99 vs. n:26, p < 0.001 and n:55 vs. n:10, p < 0.001, respectively). The quality of the images was found to be better after opening the link compared to the preview (n:34 vs. n:107; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Our study found that approximately one-quarter of urticaria images on Google Images did not match true urticarial lesions and were of suboptimal quality in both Turkish and universally accessible English.
References
2 Zuberbier T, Abdul Latiff AH, Abuzakouk M, Aquilina S, Asero R, Baker D, et al. The international EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria. Allergy. 2022;77(3):734–66. 10.1111/all.15090
3 Kolkhir P, Gimenez-Arnau AM, Kulthanan K, Peter J, Metz M, Maurer M. Urticaria. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2022;8(1):61. 10.1038/s41572-022-00389-z
4 Fok JS, Katelaris CH. Urticaria and mimickers of urticaria. Front Allergy. 2023;4:1274031. 10.3389/falgy.2023.1274031
5 Matos AL, Figueiredo C, Goncalo M. Differential diagnosis of urticarial lesions. Front Allergy. 2022;3:808543. 10.3389/falgy.2022.808543
6 Fukunaga A, Oda Y, Imamura S, Mizuno M, Fukumoto T, Washio K. Cholinergic urticaria: Subtype classification and clinical approach. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023;24(1):41–54. 10.1007/s40257-022-00728-6
7 Amsler E, Soria A, Doutre MS, Urticaria Group of French Dermatological S. Importance of patients’ photographs for urticaria diagnosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(8):2927–8. 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.028
8 Ali Z, Sorensen JA, Zhang DG, Ghazanfar MN, Allerup JAC, Maurer M, et al. Smartphone photographs of chronic urticaria taken by patients are of good quality and useful in the clinic. Dermatology. 2024;240(3):357–61. 10.1159/000535027
9 Maurer M, Weller K, Magerl M, Maurer RR, Vanegas E, Felix M, et al. The usage, quality and relevance of information and communications technologies in patients with chronic urticaria: A UCARE study. World Allergy Organ J. 2020;13(11):100475. 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100475
10 Zhang DG, Sorensen JA, Pedersen NH, Ali Z, Kocaturk E, Maurer M, et al. Online depiction of urticaria is often flawed and does not reflect the spectrum of clinical manifestation. Dermatology. 2024;240(3):507–13. 10.1159/000535932
11 Stukus DR. How Dr Google is impacting parental medical decision making. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2019;39(4):583–91. 10.1016/j.iac.2019.07.011
12 Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP. YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis—A wakeup call? J Rheumatol. 2012;39(5):899–903. 10.3899/jrheum.111114
13 Vural Solak GT, Erkoç M, Solak Y. Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education on epinephrine auto-injector. Asthma Allergy Immunol. 2024;22:58–66. 10.21911/aai.438
14 Durmaz MSB, Sevimli N. Evaluation of YoutubeTM videos that are informative on ‘how to use subcutaneous immunoglobulin?’ Asthma Allergy Immunol. 2024;22:316–23. 10.21911/aai.2024.661
15 Samur ES, Topsakal KG, Aksoy M. YouTube as a source of parents’ information for craniosynostosis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2024;27(Suppl 1):141–9. 10.1111/ocr.12732
16 Chou WS, Oh A, Klein WMP. Addressing health-elated misinformation on social media. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2417–8. 10.1001/jama.2018.16865
17 Fox S PK. Chronic disease and the internet. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC. March 2010.
18 Antia C, Baquerizo K, Korman A, Bernstein JA, Alikhan A. Urticaria: A comprehensive review: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and work-up. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;79(4):599–614. 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.01.023
19 Sanchez-Borges M, Ansotegui IJ, Baiardini I, Bernstein J, Canonica GW, Ebisawa M, et al. The challenges of chronic urticaria part 1: Epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, comorbidities, quality of life, and management. World Allergy Organ J. 2021;14(6):100533. 10.1016/j.waojou.2021.100533
20 Bernstein JA, Bouillet L, Caballero T, Staevska M. Hormonal effects on urticaria and angioedema conditions. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(6):2209–19. 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.04.021
21 Saini S, Shams M, Bernstein JA, Maurer M. Urticaria and angioedema across the ages. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(6):1866–74. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.03.030
22 da Cruz BL, Minato A, Mourao IB, Pereira DN, de Oliveira MH, Schmitt JV. Using the internet to obtain dermatological information on patients from the public health network: A cross-sectional study. An Bras Dermatol. 2022;97(4):528–31. 10.1016/j.abd.2020.12.015
23 Trepanowski N, Grant-Kels JM. Social media dermatologic advice: Dermatology without dermatologists. JAAD Int. 2023;12:101–2. 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.05.004
24 Borg JA, Chhoeung S, Georgiou DN, Hau BNC, Gayan TAK, Latifi S, et al. Social media advice for dermatologists. Skinmed. 2024;22(5):340–5.
25 Kaya O, Solak SS. Quality, reliability, and popularity of YouTube videos on urticaria: A cross-sectional analysis. Ital J Dermatol Venerol. 2023;158(4):347–52. 10.23736/S2784-8671.23.07588-6
26 Tan SS, Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e9. 10.2196/jmir.5729
27 Stevenson FA, Kerr C, Murray E, Nazareth I. Information from the internet and the doctor-patient relationship: The patient perspective—A qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8:47. 10.1186/1471-2296-8-47
28 Gao Q, Wang X, Lin Z, Liao Z. Internet usage time and trust in doctors: Evidence from China. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):2891. 10.1186/s12889-024-20395-y
29 De DR, Seivright J, Yee D, Hsiao JL, Shi VY. Readability, quality, and timeliness of patient online health resources for urticaria. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(5):1182–5. 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.04.089
30 Johnson J, Johnson AR, Jr., Andersen CA, Kelso MR, Oropallo AR, Serena TE. Skin pigmentation impacts the clinical diagnosis of wound infection: Imaging of bacterial burden to overcome diagnostic limitations. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2024;11(2):1045–55. 10.1007/s40615-023-01584-8
