ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2001
[Evaluation of medical web sites. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of an evaluation tool].
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Novel Coronavirus Related Health Information over the Internet: An Evaluation Study.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2020Article
- Evaluation of dengue-related health information on the internet.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and test the reliability of a tool for rating websites that provide information on evidence-based medicine.
designFor each site, 60% of the score was given for content (eight criteria) and 40% was given for organization and presentation (nine criteria). Five of 10 randomly selected sites met the inclusion criteria and were used by three observers to test the accuracy of the tool. Each site was rated twice by each observer, with a 3-week interval between ratings.
settingLaval University, Quebec city.
participantsThree observers.
main outcome measuresThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to rate the reliability of the tool.
resultsAverage overall scores for the five sites were 40%, 79%, 83%, 88%, and 89%. All three observers rated the same two sites in fourth and fifth place and gave the top three ratings to the other three sites. The overall rating of the five sites by the three observers yielded an ICC of 0.93 to 0.97. An ICC of 0.87 was obtained for the two overall ratings conducted 3 weeks apart.
conclusionThis new tool offers excellent intraobserver and interobserver measurement reliability and is an excellent means of distinguishing between medical websites of varying quality. For best results, we recommend that the tool be used simultaneously by two observers and that differences be resolved by consensus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11768925PMC2018466What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.