From Social Media to Peer Review: How Can we Evaluate Medical Content for Misinformation and Bias?


  • Chryssa McAlister, MD, MHSc, FRCSC
  • Hannah Chiu, MD, FRCSC
  • Amin Hatamnejad, BSc



Traditionally, ophthalmologists stay current by referring to peer reviewed papers found on scientific databases, such as PubMed, where rigorous publication standards reduce the potential for bias. We now access medical information from diverse online sources and social media allowing for fast-paced dissemination of content. Access to this rapidly evolving online information has allowed us to be more versed in our specialized knowledge than ever before. However, the rise of social media use in medicine may challenge the traditional methods aimed to limit misinformation and bias. How can we identify and evaluate bias when we access information from multiple disparate online sources in 2023?

Author Biographies

Chryssa McAlister, MD, MHSc, FRCSC

Dr. Chryssa McAlister is a comprehensive ophthalmologist in Kitchener, Ontario. She is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences at University of Toronto and an Assistant Clinical Professor (Adjunct) at McMaster University. She coordinates ophthalmology education for medical students and residents at the Waterloo Regional Campus and is involved in bioethics teaching for postgraduate ophthalmology training programs. Dr. McAlister has academic interests in bioethics and medical education.

Hannah Chiu, MD, FRCSC

Dr. Hannah Chiu is a comprehensive ophthalmologist in the Greater Toronto Area. She is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences at University of Toronto and an Assistant Clinical Professor (Adjunct) at McMaster University. Dr. Chiu is the Ophthalmology Lead for second year medical students and teaches University of Toronto and McMaster University medical students in her clinical practice. She is actively engaged in research and has presented at conferences and published in peer-review journals.

Amin Hatamnejad, BSc

Amin Hatamnejad is a medical student at McMaster University (Class of 2024) with a BSc in Kinesiology & Health Science. He has diverse research interests in ophthalmology including bioethics.


Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619-625. DOI:

Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed. JAMAevidence. McGraw Hill Medical. [accessed 2022 Dec 30].

Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(1):305-310. DOI:

Nissen T, Wynn R. The clinical case report: a review of its merits and limitations. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:264. DOI:

Ayorinde AA, Williams I, Mannion R, et al. Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study. PloS One. 2020;15(1):e0227580. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227580 DOI:

Ahmed Ali U, Reiber BMM, Ten Hove JR, et al. Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2017;402(7):1015-1022. doi:10.1007/s00423-017-1593-6 DOI:

Chorus C, Waltman L. A large-scale analysis of impact factor biased Journal self-citations. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(8):e0161021. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161021 DOI:

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407-415. DOI:

Gusenbauer M. Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics. 2019;118(1):177-214. DOI:

Beel J, Gipp B. Google Scholar’s Ranking Algorithm: An Introductory Overview. Computer Science. 2009.

Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:131. DOI:

Rovira C, Codina L, Lopezosa C. Language bias in the Google Scholar ranking algorithm. Future Internet. 2021;13(2):31. DOI:

Leigh S, Noble ME, Pearson FE, Iremonger J, Williams DT. To tweet or not to tweet: a longitudinal analysis of social media use by global diabetes researchers. Pharm Med. 2021;35(6):353-365. DOI:

Willis E, Delbaere M. Patient influencers: the next frontier in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical marketing. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(3):e29422. doi:10.2196/29422 DOI:

Carpenter CR, Sherbino J. How does an “opinion leader” influence my practice? CJEM. 2010;12(5):431-434. DOI:

FTC Staff Reminds Influencers and Brands to Clearly Disclose Relationship. Federal Trade Commission. 2017 Apr 18 [accessed 2022 Dec 5].

Songur MS, Citirik M. Evaluation of the usefulness of YouTube videos on retinal detachment surgery. Cureus. 2021;13(11):e19457. doi:10.7759/cureus.19457 DOI:

Osman W, Mohamed F, Elhassan M, Shoufan A. Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):382. DOI:

Bae SS, Baxter S. YouTube videos in the English language as a patient education resource for cataract surgery. Int Ophthalmol. 2018;38(5):1941-1945. DOI:

Tsui E, Rao RC. Navigating social media in #Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2019;126(6):779-782. DOI:



How to Cite

McAlister C, Chiu H, Hatamnejad A. From Social Media to Peer Review: How Can we Evaluate Medical Content for Misinformation and Bias?. Can Eye Care Today [Internet]. 2023 Feb. 1 [cited 2024 Jul. 24];2(1):30–34. Available from: