ArticleThe Western journal of medicine1999
Review of published criteria for evaluating health-related websites.
Article in The Western journal of medicine, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural adaptation of internet- and mobile-based interventions for mental disorders: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2021Review
- Quality of Web-Based Educational Interventions for Clinicians on Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Content and Usability Assessment.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Characteristics and quality of autism websites.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review published criteria for specifically evaluating health-related information on the World Wide Web and to identify areas of consensus in evaluation.
designSearch of 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.
resultsTwenty-nine 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 1 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 the content, design, and aesthetics of a site; disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers; currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, and maintenance of site); authority of source; ease of use; and accessibility and availability.
conclusionsMany authors agree on the key criteria for evaluating health-related Web sites and 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.
Identifiers
18751150PMC1305683What 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.