ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2002
eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical wikis dedicated to clinical practice: a systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Enhancing Evidence-Based Pharmacy by Comparing the Quality of Web-Based Information Sources to the EVInews Database: Randomized Controlled Trial With German Community Pharmacists.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Acceptance of a French e-Mental Health Information Website (CléPsy) for Families: A Web-Based Survey.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- User's Search for Information: A Multi-Language Cross-Sectional Assessment of Websites about Healthcare-Associated Infections.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024Article
- Article
- Possible Pathophysiological Roles of Neurotransmitter Systems in Men With Lifelong Premature Ejaculation: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- What Patients Find on the Internet When Looking for Information About Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multilanguage Cross-sectional Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Quality of Information Available on the Internet Regarding Chronic Ankle Instability.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of eMentalHealth.ca, a Canadian Mental Health Website Portal: Mixed Methods Assessment.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
- Contribution of sexual desire and motives to the compulsive use of cybersex.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2019Article
- How online ADHD-related information affects Chinese parents' decisions?World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2019Article
- A comprehensive scoping review to identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet.PloS one · 2019Article
- Exploring cancer centres for physical activity and sedentary behaviour support for breast cancer survivors.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- Development of a Technology-Supported, Lay Peer-to-Peer Family Engagement Consultation Service in a Pediatric Hospital.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2018Article
- An evaluation of the behaviour-change techniques used on Canadian cancer centre Web sites to support physical activity behaviour for breast cancer survivors.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2017Article
- A cross sectional review of patient information available in the World Wide Web on CyberKnife: fallacies and pitfalls.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Article
- Inflammatory bowel disease: An evaluation of health information on the internet.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- [Digital health information].Atencion primaria · 2017Article
- Designing Health Websites Based on Users' Web-Based Information-Seeking Behaviors: A Mixed-Method Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA number of organisations have begun to provide specific tools for searching, rating, and grading this information, while others have set up codes of conduct by which site providers can attest to their high quality services. The aim of such tools is to assist individuals to sift through the mountains of information available so as to be better able to discern valid and reliable messages from those which are misleading or inaccurate.
objectiveRecognising that European citizens are avid consumers of health related information on the internet and recognising that they are already using the types of rating system described above, the European Council at Feira on June 19-20 2000 supported an initiative within eEurope 2002 to develop a core set of Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites. The specific aim was to draw up a commonly agreed set of simple quality criteria on which Member States, as well as public and private bodies, may draw in the development of quality initiatives for health related websites. These criteria should be applied in addition to relevant Community law.
methodsA meeting was held during 2001 which drew together key players from Government departments, International Organisations, non-governmental organisations and industry, to explore current practices and experiments in this field. Some sixty invited participants from all the Member States, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States of America took part in the meeting of June 7-8, 2001: they included delegates from industrial, medical, and patient interest groups, delegates from Member States' governments, and key invited speakers from the field of health information ethics. These individuals, and many others, also took part in the web-based consultation which was open from august to November 2001.
resultsThe broad headings for quality criteria identified include Transparency and Honesty, Authority, Privacy and data protection, Updating of information, Accountability, Responsible partnering, Editorial policy, Accessibility, the latter includes attention to guidelines on physical accessibility as well as general findability, searchability, readability, usability, etc. A metadata labelling system may be used to make health data more findable. Such a system may also be used in conjunction with quality criteria to give higher ranking by search engines to those sites or pages labelled as complying with defined quality criteria.
conclusionsThe set of quality criteria is based upon a broad consensus among specialists in this field, health authorities, and prospective users. It is now to be expected that national and regional health authorities, relevant professional associations, and private medical website owners will 1) implement the Quality Criteria for Health Related Websites in a manner appropriate to their website and consumers; 2) develop information campaigns to educate site developers and citizens about minimum quality standards for health related websites; 3) draw on the wide range of health information offered across the European Union and localise such information for the benefit of citizens (translation and cultural adaptation); 4) exchange information and experience at European level about how quality standards are being implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.