ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018
The QUEST for quality online health information: validation of a short quantitative tool.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.
- ChatGPT provides accurate and safe responses to patient questions on hip arthroscopy, while completeness remains variable: A systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- The Landscape of Mobile Apps for Healthy Eating: Case Study for a Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Boxing for Parkinson's Disease: Has Implementation Accelerated Beyond Current Evidence?Frontiers in neurology · 2019Pooled 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
- Accessibility and Decision-Supportive Quality of Benign Breast Disease Articles on Chinese Hospital WeChat Public Accounts: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Resources to Support Families Navigating Early-Stage Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- #NoIDVape: A content analysis of illicit vape messaging in young people's information sources.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Appraisal of international, patient-facing resources on heavy menstrual bleeding.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Evaluating the reliability and information quality of ChatGPT responses on vaccine hesitancy: an expert panel study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Development of a Validated Lay Checklist (Info Without Side Effects) for Assessing Health Information on Websites: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a tool for detecting misinformation risk in diet, nutrition, and health content (Diet-MisRAT).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Quality and readability of Turkish online patient information websites on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Validation of the Simplified Chinese Clear Communication Index Using Diabetes Education Materials: Instrument Adaptation and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Quality of Online Information on Patient-Specific Knee Arthroplasty and Its Impact on Personalized Care.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- What does Dr Google tell us about tendinopathies? An Italian analysis of online content.Pain management · 2025Article
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOnline health information is unregulated and can be of highly variable quality. There is currently no singular quantitative tool that has undergone a validation process, can be used for a broad range of health information, and strikes a balance between ease of use, concision and comprehensiveness. To address this gap, we developed the QUality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST). Here we report on the analysis of the reliability and validity of the QUEST in assessing the quality of online health information.
methodsThe QUEST and three existing tools designed to measure the quality of online health information were applied to two randomized samples of articles containing information about the treatment (n = 16) and prevention (n = 29) of Alzheimer disease as a sample health condition. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a weighted Cohen's kappa (κ) for each item of the QUEST. To compare the quality scores generated by each pair of tools, convergent validity was measured using Kendall's tau (τ) ranked correlation.
resultsThe QUEST demonstrated high levels of inter-rater reliability for the seven quality items included in the tool (κ ranging from 0.7387 to 1.0, P < .05). The tool was also found to demonstrate high convergent validity. For both treatment- and prevention-related articles, all six pairs of tests exhibited a strong correlation between the tools (τ ranging from 0.41 to 0.65, P < .05).
conclusionsOur findings support the QUEST as a reliable and valid tool to evaluate online articles about health. Results provide evidence that the QUEST integrates the strengths of existing tools and evaluates quality with equal efficacy using a concise, seven-item questionnaire. The QUEST can serve as a rapid, effective, and accessible method of appraising the quality of online health information for researchers and clinicians alike.
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.