Parents, schools and libraries, concerned about the ease with which young children can access pornographic material, often turn to filter software that aims to spot unsuitable content and bar children from opening it.
However, it was feared that health websites, with their reliance on anatomical words and often tackling issues related to sex, might also be blocked by the filtering system.
But a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that while the software successfully blocked nine out of 10 porn sites, this was at the expense of only one in 20 health-related websites.
This rate was achieved when the software was put on its least restrictive setting.
No improvement
Increasing the level of restrictions, the researchers found, did not greatly increase its ability to block porn sites, but meant that a quarter of health sites were cut out.
The research involved 586 pre-selected health sites aimed at teenagers.
"
Clearly, younger children will need more supervision than older ones
"
Will Gardner, Childnet International
Dr Caroline Richardson, a lecturer in the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan Health System, said: "In general, we found that filters were remarkably good at distinguishing between health information and pornography."
Another co-author, Dr Paul Resnick, said: "Much of the policy debate until now has been about whether filters should be installed at all.
"Our study suggests that careful thought and debate should also precede decisions about what settings to choose."
Careful watch
Childnet International, a UK-based charity which aims to protect children from internet threats, told BBC News Online that while this proved that blocking software worked, it also demonstrated that it was not infallible.
Will Gardner, its research and policy officer, said: "Parents should be aware that it is not a babysitter.
"You need to sit down with your child and talk to them about these issues.
"Clearly, younger children will need more supervision than older ones."