HealthRatings.org Rates the 20
Most-Trafficked Diet Sites

Research Conducted by:
Consumer Reports WebWatch and the Health Improvement Institute (HII)

Consumer Reports WebWatch
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkers, N.Y., USA 10703-1057

View Ratings

Abstract

Using a tool based on WebWatch’s guidelines for Web site credibility and HII criteria for health information, a panel of health and medical experts examined 20 sites in-depth over a period of more than one month, then rated each using long-established Consumer Reports-style methods and the familiar trademarked symbols. The list was determined using Nielsen//NetRatings and WebWatch data.

Overall ratings scores were determined from ten different attributes, including identity, advertising and sponsorship disclosure, ease of use, privacy, contents, authorship, references, editorial policies and diet self-help plans. Those sites that did not have plans were not penalized in scoring.

The ratings do not test the scientific accuracy and validity of treatments described, nor the medical effectiveness of specific diets. However, a number of the ratings attributes are intended to evaluate information quality. Sites that scored well in contents, authorship, references and transparency of editorial policies scored the highest overall.

These ratings are illustrated on www.HeathRatings.org by Consumer Reports ratings symbols for each criteria.

Results:

--Of 20 diet sites, or diet and fitness sections of major sites, to be rated, three were given the highest rating of "Excellent": Aetna InteliHealth, MedicineNet.com, and MayoClinic.com.

--Two received a "Very Good" rating: WebMD and National Institutes of Health.

--Three were given a rating of "Good": eDiets.com, RealAge and WeightWatchers.com.

--Sites rated "excellent" included unbiased, peer-reviewed content written by health professionals.

--Six sites rated "Fair": MSN Health & Fitness, About Health & Fitness, Yahoo! Health, The Sonoma Diet, The Biggest Loser Club and The South Beach Diet Online.

--Six were given the lowest rating of "Poor": AOL Health, QualityHealth.com, Light 'n Fit, Healthology, Prevention.com and TrimLife.

--Three of the 20 sites are non-profit, or run by non-profit ventures that accept advertising. Two of these received the highest rating.

--The best sites offered a clear distinction between editorial content and sponsored content.

--Sites rated "excellent" included unbiased, peer-reviewed content written by health professionals.

--Sites rated "Fair and "Poor" often failed to disclose that health content and surveys were sponsored by advertisers, did not clearly display policies to correct false, misleading or incorrect information, and seemed to be functioning as marketing sites for health products.