ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2008
The DARTS tool for assessing online medicines information.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Developing an Instrument to Evaluate the Quality of Dementia Websites.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Promoting veterinary medication safety - Exploring the competencies of community pharmacy professionals in veterinary pharmacotherapy.Veterinary and animal science · 2023Article
- Digital Scientific Platform for Independent Content in Neurology: Rigorous Quality Guideline Development and Implementation.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Quantifying the Quality of Web-Based Health Information on Student Health Center Websites Using a Software Tool: Design and Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Awareness of diagnosis, treatment and risk of late effects in Chinese survivors of childhood cancer in Hong Kong.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- How online ADHD-related information affects Chinese parents' decisions?World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2019Article
- The QUEST for quality online health information: validation of a short quantitative tool.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Article
- Assessing the availability of the teratogenic drug isotretinoin outside the pregnancy prevention programme: a survey of e-pharmacies.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2014Article
- Article
- Is the Internet replacing health professionals? A population survey on sources of medicines information among people with mental disorders.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe use of the Internet as a source of medicines information is increasing. However, the quality of online information is highly variable. Equipping Internet users to distinguish good quality information is the aim of a new five-item quality assessment tool (DARTS) that was developed by the Working Group on Information to Patients under the Pharmaceutical Forum established by the European Commission. The objective of this study was to investigate how people with depression assess the quality of online medicines information and to study their opinions about the DARTS tool in assisting in this process.
settingFocus group discussions with Internet users were conducted in metropolitan Helsinki, Finland.
methodSix focus group discussions (67-109 min duration) were conducted with people with depression (n = 29). The DARTS tool was used as a stimulus after open discussion in relation to the evaluation of the quality of Internet-based medicines information. The focus groups were digitally audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were thematically content analysed by two researchers.
resultsFocus group participants were generally critical of the information they retrieved. However, few participants systematically applied quality assessment criteria when retrieving online information. No participants had knowledge or experience of any quality assessment tools. The DARTS tool was perceived as being concise and easy to use and understand. Many participants indicated it would allay some of their concerns related to information quality and act as a reminder. While several participants felt the tool should not be any more extensive, some of them believed it should include a more in-depth explanation to accompany each of the quality criteria.
conclusionsThe DARTS tool may act as a prompt for people with depression to assess the quality of online information they obtain. The five DARTS criteria may form the basis of a systematic approach to quality assessment and the tool may also act as a reminder of quality issues in general. Further studies are needed to assess the actual value of the DARTS tool as well as its value in relation to other quality assessment instruments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18791806What 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.