Quality of websites: kitemarking the west wind.

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.

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.

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Some considerations on digital health validation.NPJ digital medicine · 2019
   Article
2. Online information needs of cancer patients and their organizations.Ecancermedicalscience · 2011
   Article
3. [Health information on the Internet and trust marks as quality indicators: vaccines case study].Atencion primaria · 2009
   Article
4. Parenthood, information and support on the internet. A literature review of research on parents and professionals online.BMC family practice · 2009
   Review
5. The DARTS tool for assessing online medicines information.Pharmacy world & science : PWS · 2008
   Article
6. Evaluation of ehealth systems and services.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004
   Article
7. [Navigating on the internet in search of health information: all that glitters is not gold].Atencion primaria · 2004
   Article
8. [Evaluation of Spanish websites useful for the primary care physicians].Atencion primaria · 2003
   Article
9. Assessment strategies: how patients cope with the diverse quality levels of websites when searching for health information.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2003
   Article
10. Education and debate: Regulating health information: a US perspective.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
    Review
11. 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 (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
    Review
12. Follow up of quality of public oriented health information on the world wide web: systematic re-evaluation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
    Article
13. Against internet exceptionalism.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
    Article
14. Information superhighway or billboards by the roadside? An analysis of hospital web sites.The Western journal of medicine · 2001
    Article
15. [Home pages for primary care].Atencion primaria · 2001
    Article
16. Kitemarking the west wind. Website labels are analogous to food labels.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001
    Article
17. Promoting health literacy.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Review
18. Review of internet health information quality initiatives.Journal of medical Internet research
    Review
19. LASIK complications and the Internet: is the public being misled?Journal of medical Internet research
    Article
20. Where are they now? A case study of health-related Web site attrition.Journal of medical Internet research
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  NHS Direct Online has important role.2001
• Commented on by
  Kitemarking the west wind. Website labels are analogous to food labels.2001

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as