[1. Sechrest RC. The Internet and the physician-patient relationship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2566-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3.10.1007/s11999-010-1440-3304963220574803]Search in Google Scholar
[2. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1-2):24-8.10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.00616406474]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16(6):671-92.10.1093/her/16.6.67111780707]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287(20):2691-700.10.1001/jama.287.20.269112020305]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Kealey E, Berkman CS. The relationship between health information sources and mental models of cancer: findings from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2010;15 Suppl 3:236-51. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2010.522693.10.1080/10810730.2010.52269321154096]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Zhang Y. Beyond quality and accessibility: Source selection in consumer health information searching. J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2014;65:911–927. doi:10.1002/asi.2302310.1002/asi.23023]Search in Google Scholar
[7. DiFonzo N, Robinson NM, Suls JM, Rini C. Rumors about cancer: content, sources, coping, transmission, and belief. J Health Commun. 2012;17(9):1099-115. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.665417.10.1080/10810730.2012.66541722724591]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Weaver III JB, Thompson NJ, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL. Healthcare non-adherence decisions and Internet health information. Computers in Human Behavior. 2009;25(6):1373-80.10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.011]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Muñoz JA, Puyol JA, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612-21.10.1001/jama.285.20.2612418210211368735]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Catania J, Lee K, Zapert K, Turner R. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: national U.S. survey among 1.050 U.S. Physicians. J Med Internet Res. 2003;5(3):e17.10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17155056414517108]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Hämeen-Anttila K1, Nordeng H, Kokki E, Jyrkkä J, Lupattelli A, Vainio K, Enlund H. Multiple information sources and consequences of conflicting information about medicine use during pregnancy: a multinational Internet-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(2):e60. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2939.10.2196/jmir.2939]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Kata A. Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm--an overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine. 2012;30(25):3778-89. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112.10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Gangarosa E, Galazka A, Wolfe C, Phillips L, Gangarosa R, Miller E, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351(9099):356–61.10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04334-1]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Bhandari N, Shi Y, Jung K. Seeking health information online: does limited healthcare access matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1113-7. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350.10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002350421503824948558]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013. Pew Internet Project. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf Accessed: September 30, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2011. Online http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, et al. European citizens’ use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 2007;7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53.10.1186/1471-2458-7-53185592317425798]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Euroepan Commission. Information society statistics. Eurostat. Sept. 2010 Online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. Accessed: June 14, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. TradeAds Interactive. Profilul utilizatorului de Internet – editia II. Bursa de reclamă. 2011. Online: http://blog.tradeads.eu/2011/01/31/profilul-utilizatorului-de-internet-editia-ii/ Accessed: January 31, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Institutul Român pentru Evaluare şi Strategie. Românii şi internetul. Studiu privind utilizarea Internetului şi comportamentul internautic al românilor. 2011. Online: http://www.ires.com.ro/uploads/articole/ires_romanii-si-internetul-2011_analiza.pdf. Accessed: October 1, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Powell J, Inglis N, Ronnie J, Large S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e20. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1600.10.2196/jmir.1600322134221345783]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Dart J, Gallois C, Yellowlees P. Community health information sources--a survey in three disparate communities. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(1):186-96.10.1071/AH080186]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Dutta-Bergman MJ. Health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors among Internet health information seekers: population-based survey. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(2):e15.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e15155059315249264]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Demiris G. Consumer Health Informatics: Past, Present, and Future of a Rapidly Evolving Domain. Yearb Med Inform. 2016;Suppl 1:S42-7. doi: 10.15265/IYS-2016-s005.10.15265/IYS-2016-s005517150927199196]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Houston TK, Ehrenberger HE. The potential of consumer health informatics. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2001;17(1):41-7.10.1053/sonu.2001.2041811236364]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Hoffmann D, Schwartz J. Stopping deceptive health claims: the need for a private right of action under federal law. Am J Law Med. 2016;42(1):53-84.10.1177/009885881664471527263263]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Dyer KA. Ethical challenges of medicine and health on the Internet: a review. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E23.10.2196/jmir.3.2.e23176189311720965]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Unal B, Critchley JA, Capewell S. Missing, mediocre, or merely obsolete? An evaluation of UK data sources for coronary heart disease. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(7):530-5.10.1136/jech.57.7.530173250212821703]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Rajani R, Mukherjee D, Chambers J. Murmurs: how reliable is information on the internet? Int J Cardiol. 2007;119(1):112-3.10.1016/j.ijcard.2006.07.06117049389]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Ching T, Roake JA, Lewis DR. Net-based information on varicose vein treatments: a tangled web. N Z Med J. 2010;123(1323):9-15.]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Killeen S, Hennessey A, El Hassan Y, Killeen K, Clarke N, Murray K, Waldron B. Gastric cancer-related information on the Internet: incomplete, poorly accessible, and overly commercial. Am J Surg. 2011;201(2):171-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.015.10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.01520851373]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Ream E, Blows E, Scanlon K, Richardson A. An investigation of the quality of breast cancer information provided on the internet by voluntary organisations in Great Britain. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;76(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.019.10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.01919179036]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE. Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):577-81.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5777899511884322]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Ni Riordain R, McCreary C. Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(8):675-7. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.006.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2008.10.00619095486]Search in Google Scholar
[35. López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F. The quality of internet sites providing information relating to oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(9):e95-8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.017.10.1016/j.oraloncology.2009.03.01719457707]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Dulaney C, Barrett OC, Rais-Bahrami S, Wakefield D, Fiveash J, Dobelbower M. Quality of Prostate Cancer Treatment Information on Cancer Center Websites. Cureus. 2016;8(4):e580. doi: 10.7759/cureus.580.10.7759/cureus.580487600627226941]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N, Groll R, Fleshner NE. Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology. 2009;74(5):1058-63. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091.10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Minzer-Conzetti K, Garzon MC, Haggstrom AN, Horii KA, Mancini AJ, Morel KD, Newell B, Nopper AJ, Frieden IJ. Information about infantile hemangiomas on the Internet: how accurate is it? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57(6):998-1004.10.1016/j.jaad.2007.06.038]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Pérez-López FR. An evaluation of the contents and quality of menopause information on the World Wide Web. Maturitas. 2004;49(4):276-82.10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.07.006]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Bedell SE, Agrawal A, Petersen LE. A systematic critique of diabetes on the world wide web for patients and their physicians. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(9-10):687-94.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.04.011]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Thakurdesai PA, Kole PL, Pareek RP. Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on Internet. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53(3):309-13.10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001]Search in Google Scholar
[42. McGill JF, Moo TA, Kato M, Hoda R, Allendorf JD, Inabnet WB, Fahey TJ 3rd, Brunaud L, Zarnegar R, Lee JA. World wide what? The quality of information on parathyroid disease available on the Internet. Surgery. 2009;146(6):1123-9. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016.10.1016/j.surg.2009.09.016]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Ostry A, Young ML, Hughes M. The quality of nutritional information available on popular websites: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 2008;23(4):648-55.10.1093/her/cym050]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Sutherland LA, Wildemuth B, Campbell MK, Haines PS. Unraveling the web: an evaluation of the content quality, usability, and readability of nutrition web sites. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005;37(6):300-5.10.1016/S1499-4046(06)60160-7]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Nădăşan V, Moldovan G, Tarcea M, Ureche R. Edified or confused? How complete and accurate is the information about vitamin B12 on the Romanian Websites? Revista de Igienă şi Sănătate Publică, Timişoara 2011;61(4):49-57.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Griffiths KM, Christensen H. Quality of web based information on treatment of depression: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;321(7275):1511-5.10.1136/bmj.321.7275.15112755511118181]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Burneo JG. An evaluation of the quality of epilepsy education on the Canadian World Wide Web. Epilepsy Behav. 2006;8(1):299-302.10.1016/j.yebeh.2005.09.00816275110]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Tench CM, Clunie GP, Dacre J, Peacock A. An insight into rheumatology resources available on the World Wide Web. Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37(11):1233-5.10.1093/rheumatology/37.11.1233]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Lewiecki EM, Rudolph LA, Kiebzak GM, Chavez JR, Thorpe BM. Assessment of osteoporosis-website quality. Osteoporos Int. 2006;17(5):741-52.10.1007/s00198-005-0042-5]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Tiller G, Rea S, Silla R, Wood F. Burns first aid information on the Internet. Burns. 2006;32(7):897-901.10.1016/j.burns.2006.02.020]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Butler DP, Perry F, Shah Z, Leon-Villapalos J. The quality of video information on burn first aid available on YouTube. Burns. 2013;39(5):856-9. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017.10.1016/j.burns.2012.10.017]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Nădăşan V, Vancea G, Georgescu AP, Tarcea M, Abram Z. The Credibility, Completeness and Accuracy of Information about First Aid in Case of Choking on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2011;6(3):18-26.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Morr S, Shanti N, Carrer A, Kubeck J, Gerling MC. Quality of information concerning cervical disc herniation on the Internet. Spine J. 2010;10(4):350-4. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009.10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.009]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Greene DL, Appel AJ, Reinert SE, Palumbo MA. Lumbar disc herniation: evaluation of information on the internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):826-9.10.1097/01.brs.0000157754.98023.cd]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Mathur S, Shanti N, Brkaric M, Sood V, Kubeck J, Paulino C, Merola AA. Surfing for scoliosis: the quality of information available on the Internet. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(23):2695-700.10.1097/01.brs.0000188266.22041.c2]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Soot LC, Moneta GL, Edwards JM. Vascular surgery and the Internet: a poor source of patient-oriented information. J Vasc Surg. 1999;30(1):84-91.10.1016/S0741-5214(99)70179-5]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Yermilov I, Chow W, Devgan L, Makary MA, Ko CY. What is the quality of surgery-related information on the internet? Lessons learned from a standardized evaluation of 10 common operations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(4):580-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.034.10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.04.03418926463]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Nădăşan V, Voidăzan S, Tarcea M, Ureche R. The quality of information about influenza on the Romanian Internet. Acta Medica Transilvanica 2011;2(3):312-4.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M. Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 1997; 314:1875–81.10.1136/bmj.314.7098.187521269849224132]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Nădăşan V, Moldovan O. The Completeness and Accuracy of Information about Coeliac Disease on the Romanian Websites. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods. 2016;11(3):72-83.]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Lau AY, Gabarron E, Fernandez-Luque L, Armayones M. Social media in health--what are the safety concerns for health consumers? HIM J. 2012;41(2):30-5.10.1177/183335831204100204]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Hughes B, Joshi I, Wareham J. Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: tensions and controversies in the field. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(3):e23.10.2196/jmir.1056]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Fullwood MD, Kecojevic A, Basch CH. Examination of YouTube videos related to synthetic cannabinoids. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2016;pii:/j/ijamh.ahead-of-print/ijamh-2016-0073/ijamh-2016-0073.xml. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073.10.1515/ijamh-2016-0073]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Towards quality management of medical information on the internet: evaluation, labelling and filtering of information, BMJ 1998;317:1496-1500.]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Ahlbrandt J, Brammen D, Majeed RW, Lefering R, Semler SC, Thun S, Walcher F, Röhrig R. Balancing the need for big data and patient data privacy--an IT infrastructure for a decentralized emergency care research database. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:750-4.]Search in Google Scholar
[66. López L, Green AR, Tan-McGrory A, King R, Betancourt JR. Bridging the digital divide in health care: the role of health information technology in addressing racial and ethnic disparities. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011;37(10):437-45.10.1016/S1553-7250(11)37055-9]Search in Google Scholar
[67. Domanski K, Kleinschmidt KC, Schulte JM, Fleming S, Frazee C, Menendez A, Tavakoli K. Two cases of intoxication with new synthetic opioid, U-47700. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2016:1-5. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2016.120976310.1080/15563650.2016.120976327432224]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287(21),2869-71.10.1001/jama.287.21.286912038937]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Food and Drug Administration. Consumer Health Information. FDA 101: Health Fraud Awareness. May 2009. Online: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ProtectYourself/HealthFraud/UCM167504.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[70. National Institute on Aging. Online Health Information: Can You Trust It? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. December 2014. Online: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/publication/online-health-information. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[71. National Cancer Institute. Using Trusted Resources. National Institutes of Health. March 2015. Online: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/managing-care/using-trusted-resources. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[72. Jadad A, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the internet: navigation to knowledge or to Babel. JAMA 1998;279(8):611-4.10.1001/jama.279.8.6119486757]Search in Google Scholar
[73. Gagliardi A, Jadad A. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ 2002;324:569-73.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.5697899311884320]Search in Google Scholar
[74. Bernstam EV, Shelton DM, Walji M, Meric-Bernstam F. Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(1):13-9.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.10.00115626632]Search in Google Scholar
[75. Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):598-602.10.1136/bmj.324.7337.598112251711884329]Search in Google Scholar
[76. Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: a review. BMJ 1999; 318:647-9.10.1136/bmj.318.7184.6472777210066209]Search in Google Scholar
[77. Walji M, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Meric-Bernstam F, Johnson C, Mirza NQ, Bernstam EV. Efficacy of Quality Criteria to Identify Potentially Harmful Information: A Cross-sectional Survey of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Web Sites. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(2):e21.10.2196/jmir.6.2.e21155060015249270]Search in Google Scholar
[78. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites. J Med Internet Res 2002;4(3):e15. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.3.e1510.2196/jmir.4.3.e15176194512554546]Search in Google Scholar
[79. Chiang MF, Cole RG, Gupta S, Kaiser GE, Starren JB. Computer and World Wide Web accessibility by visually disabled patients: problems and solutions. Surv Ophthalmol. 2005;50(4):394-405.10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.04.00415967193]Search in Google Scholar
[80. Davis JJ. Disenfranchising the disabled: the inaccessibility of Internet-based health information. J Health Commun. 2002;7(4):355-67.10.1080/1081073029000170112356292]Search in Google Scholar
[81. Oakland T, Lane HB. Language, Reading, and Readability Formulas: Implications for Developing and Adapting Tests. International Journal of Testing 2004;4(3):239-52.10.1207/s15327574ijt0403_3]Search in Google Scholar
[82. Leroy G, Helmreich S, Cowie JR, Miller T, Zheng W. Evaluating online health information: beyond readability formulas. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008:394-8.]Search in Google Scholar
[83. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, Browne A, Keselman A, Zeng-Treitler Q. Beyond surface characteristics: a new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007:418-22.]Search in Google Scholar
[84. Leroy G, Miller T. A Balanced Approach to Health Information Evaluation: A Vocabulary-Based Naïve Bayes Classifier and Readability Formulas. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 2008;59:1409-19.10.1002/asi.20837]Search in Google Scholar
[85. McInnes N, Haglund BJ. Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011;36(4):173-89. doi: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529.10.3109/17538157.2010.54252921332302]Search in Google Scholar
[86. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1310-5.]Search in Google Scholar
[87. Stausberg J, Fuchs J, Hüsing J, Hirche H. Health care providers on the World Wide Web: quality of presentations of surgical departments in Germany. Med Inform Internet Med. 2001;26(1):17-24.10.1080/14639230010024348]Search in Google Scholar
[88. Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, Fishwick L. A framework for understanding trust factors in web-based health advice. Int J Human-Computer Studies. 2006 64(8):697-713.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.007]Search in Google Scholar
[89. Health On the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites. Online: http://www.hon.ch/Global/index.html. Accesed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[90. iHealthCoalition. eHealth Code of Ethics. Online: http://www.ihealthcoalition.org/ehealth-code-of-ethics/. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[91. Kemper DW. Hi-Ethics: Tough principles for earning consumer trust. URAC/Internet Healthcare Coalition. 2001. Online: http://www.imaginologia.com.br/dow/manual/Hi-Ethics.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[92. Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: Principles governing AMA websites. JAMA 2000;283:1600–16.10.1001/jama.283.12.1600]Search in Google Scholar
[93. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations. IFPMA Code Of Practice 2012. Online: http://www.lif.se/globalassets/etik/dokument/ifpma_code_of_practice_2012.pdf. Accessed: September 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[94. DISCERN. Background. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/background_to_discern.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[95. Net Scoring: criteria to assess the quality of Health Internet information. Online: http://www.chu-rouen.fr/netscoring/netscoringeng.html. Accessed: October 05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[96. Boulos MNK, Roudsari AV, Gordon C, Gray JAM. The Use of Quality Benchmarking in Assessing Web Resources for the Dermatology Virtual Branch Library of the National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) J Med Internet Res 2001;3(1):e5.10.2196/jmir.3.1.e5]Search in Google Scholar
[97. Eysenbach G. Design and evaluation of consumer health information websites. In: Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Jimison H, Stavri Z (eds.): Consumer Health Informatics. Springer New York 2005.10.1007/0-387-27652-1_4]Search in Google Scholar
[98. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission – URAC. Accreditation Programs - What is URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation? Online: https://www.urac.org/accreditation-and-measurement/accreditation-programs/all-programs/health-web-site/. Accessed: October 05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[99. Risk A, Dzenowagis J. Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives. J Med Internet Res 2001;3(4):e28. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.3.4.e2810.2196/jmir.3.4.e28]Search in Google Scholar
[100. Intute: Medicine including dentistry. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/medicine/. Accessed: 24.06.2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[101. U.S. National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. About MedlinePlus. Online: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aboutmedlineplus.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[102. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONcodeHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/hunt.html, and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/hunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[103. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONselect. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Patients/honselect.html and http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/honselect.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[104. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/MedHunt. Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONsearch/Pro/medhunt.html. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[105. Health On the Net Foundation. HONsearch/HONmedia. Online: http://services.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONmedia. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[106. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About healthfinder.gov Online: https://healthfinder.gov/aboutus/. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[107. U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, Online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/. Accessed: October.05.2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[108. Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions. How Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2002. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ Accessed: October 15, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[109. Griffiths KM, Tang TT, Hawking D, Christensen H. Automated Assessment of the Quality of Depression Websites J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e59.10.2196/jmir.7.5.e59]Search in Google Scholar
[110. Wang Y, Liu Z. Automatic detecting indicators for quality of health information on the Web. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(8):575-82.10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.04.001]Search in Google Scholar
[111. Aphinyanaphongs Y, Fu LD, Aliferis CF. Identifying unproven cancer treatments on the health web: addressing accuracy, generalizability and scalability. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:667-71.]Search in Google Scholar
[112. MedCIRCLE. Collaboration for Internet Rating, Certification, Labeling and Evaluation of Health Information. Online: http://www.medcircle.org/about.php. Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[113. Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites. Comput Biol Med. 1998;28(5):603-10.10.1016/S0010-4825(98)00037-7]Search in Google Scholar
[114. Health On the Net Foundation, he HON Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites (HONcode). Online: http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Conduct.html. Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[115. Health On the Net Foundation, The services offered by HON. Online: http://www.hon.ch/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[116. DISCERN - About this site. Online: http://www.discern.org.uk/about.php Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[117. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1999;53:105-11.10.1136/jech.53.2.105175683010396471]Search in Google Scholar
[118. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004;19:440-6.10.1093/her/cyg04615155597]Search in Google Scholar
[119. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Coquard O, Fernandez S, Khan R, Billieux J, Zullino D. Brief DISCERN, six questions for the evaluation of evidence-based content of health-related websites. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(1):33-7.10.1016/j.pec.2009.02.01619372023]Search in Google Scholar
[120. Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC). About URAC. Online: http://www.urac.org/about/. Accessed: October 5, 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[121. Overview of URAC’s Health Web Site Accreditation Review. Online: http://www.urac.org/consumers/overview.aspx. Accessed: 26.06.2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[122. Intute / Frequently asked questions. Online: http://www.intute.ac.uk/faq.html. Accessed: June 27, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[123. Eysenbach G, Yihune G, Lampe K, Cross P, Brickley D. Quality management, certification and rating of health information on the Net with MedCERTAIN: using a medPICS/RDF/XML metadata structure for implementing eHealth ethics and creating trust globally. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2(2 Suppl):2E1.10.2196/jmir.2.suppl2.e1]Search in Google Scholar
[124. World Health Organization. WHO proposal would raise quality of internet health information. Press Release WHO/72 November 13, 2000. Online: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-72.html. Accessed: June 26, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[125. Solomonides AE, Mackey TK. Emerging ethical issues in digital health information. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(3):311-22. doi: 10.1017/S0963180114000632.10.1017/S096318011400063226059957]Search in Google Scholar
[126. Mackey TK, Eysenbach G, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Geissbuhler A, Attaran A. A call for a moratorium on the .health generic top-level domain: preventing the commercialization and exclusive control of online health information. Global Health. 2014;10:62. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z.10.1186/s12992-014-0062-z417706125283176]Search in Google Scholar
[127. Mackey TK, Liang BA, Kohler JC, Attaran A. Health domains for sale: the need for global health Internet governance. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e62. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3276.10.2196/jmir.3276396180824598602]Search in Google Scholar
[128. Alexandru A, Ianculescu M, Jitaru E, Pârvan M. Edusan – Sistem complex integrat privind educaţia pentru sănătate şi profilaxie. Revista Română de Informatică şi Automatică. 2006;16(4).]Search in Google Scholar
[129. Nădăşan V – O evaluare a calității informațiilor medicale din spațiul virtual românesc, Teză de doctorat, Universitatea de Medicină şi Farmacie Tîrgu Mureş, Nov. 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[130. Nădăşan V, Ancuceanu R, Tarcea M, Grosar CM, Ureche R. General characteristics of the Romanian Medical Webscape. Acta Medica Marrisiensis 2011;57(2):94-7.]Search in Google Scholar