Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10066209›Full record

ReviewBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1999

Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review.

P Kim, T R Eng, M J Deering, A Maxfield

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 104 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
104citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

104 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Approaches to Improvement of Digital Health Literacy (eHL) in the Context of Person-Centered Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Online physical activity and sedentary behaviour information for cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

44 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

P KimHealth Communication and Telehealth, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC, USA.
T R Eng
M J Deering
A Maxfield

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus.

designSearch of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nexis databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories.

results29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted from these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability.

conclusionsResults suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.

Indexed as

Evaluation Studies as TopicInternetMedical Informatics

Identifiers

PMID10066209
PMCPMC27772

What OpenQuestion holds

Texttitle and abstract
measurements read2
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.