ArticleAtencion primaria2009
[Assessment of websites with information on medicines].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of a Questionnaire of Food Education Content on School Catering Websites in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- [Presence and adequacy of pharmaceutical preparations in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia].Atencion primaria · 2013Article
- [Drug information in Internet: necessary and improvable].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
- [The information about drugs on the Internet, a great step ahead].Atencion primaria · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo identify websites with information on medicines and assess, using experts, their adherence to codes of conduct and recommendations by the WHO.
designCross-sectional study based on an ad hoc designed questionnaire (performed independently by 2 reviewers). The websites were identified by the Delphi technique (35 experts).
settingWebsites with information on medicines.
participantsA total of 35 websites selected by the Delphi technique. An acceptable level of stability was achieved in the third round (interquartile variability; <0.05). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Responsibility, transparency and honesty, authorship of the information, content review policy, privacy and data protection policies, updated information and accessibility. A descriptive analysis of compliance was carried out and the kappa coefficient was estimated to evaluate the agreement between assessors (Fleiss's Criteria).
resultsThe National Prescribing Service Limited (NPS), PubMed, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, The Lancet, Fisterra and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence stood out with an overall high fulfilment of the questionnaire. The updated information dimension was the lowest evaluation for the different websites.
conclusionsThe quality of the web sites evaluated varied widely. Although there are several websites, which are detailed in the article, with high overall scores.
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.