ArticlePloS one2019
A comprehensive scoping review to identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of web-based information about the coronavirus disease 2019: a rapid systematic review of infodemiology studies published during the first year of the pandemic.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- The Readability of Patient-Facing Information in Public Reporting System: Cross-Sectional Evaluation of the City of Helsinki Website.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
- Knowledge of and Attitudes Towards Standard Care in Patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- The possibility of patient-centered dietetic intervention in the context of health literacy in Hungary.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Parents' User Experience Accessing and Using a Web-Based Map of COVID-19 Recommendations for Health Decision-Making: Qualitative Descriptive Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Article
- Internet use by pregnant women during prenatal care.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
- Assessing Credibility: Quality Criteria for Patients, Caregivers, and the Public in Online Health Information-A Qualitative Study.Journal of patient experience · 2024Article
- Development and Acceptability of a Kidney Therapy Decision Aid for Patients Aged 75 Years and Older: A Design-Based Research Involving Patients, Caregivers, and a Multidisciplinary Team.Kidney medicine · 2023Article
- Defining Recommendations to Guide User Interface Design: Multimethod Approach.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Social Media for ImpLementing Evidence (SMILE): Conceptual Framework.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Readability and Suitability of Information Presented on a University Health Center Website.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2022Article
- Quality and content evaluation of websites with information about immune checkpoint inhibitors: An environmental scan.PloS one · 2022Article
- Quality of web-based information at the beginning of a global pandemic: a cross-sectional infodemiology study investigating preventive measures and self care methods of the coronavirus disease 2019.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Quality appraisal of educational websites about osteoporosis and bone health.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Article
- Information in Spanish on the Internet about the Prevention of COVID-19.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Review
- Navigating online health information: Insights into consumer influence and decision-making strategies-An overview of reviews.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline health information, if evidence-based and unbiased, can improve patients' and caregivers' health knowledge and assist them in disease management and health care decision-making.
objectiveTo identify standards for the development of health information resources on the internet for patients.
methodsWe searched in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for publications describing evaluation instruments for websites providing health information. Eligible instruments were identified by three independent reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus. Items reported were extracted and categorized into seven domains (accuracy, completeness and comprehensiveness, technical elements, design and aesthetics, usability, accessibility, and readability) that were previously thought to be a minimum requirement for websites.
resultsOne hundred eleven articles met inclusion criteria, reporting 92 evaluation instruments (1609 items). We found 74 unique items that we grouped into the seven domains. For the accuracy domain, one item evaluated information provided in concordance with current guidelines. For completeness and comprehensiveness, 18 items described the disease with respect to various topics such as etiology or therapy, among others. For technical elements, 27 items evaluated disclosure of authorship, sponsorship, affiliation, editorial process, feedback process, privacy, and data protection. For design and aesthetics, 10 items evaluated consistent layout and relevant graphics and images. For usability, 10 items evaluated ease of navigation and functionality of internal search engines. For accessibility, five items evaluated the availability of websites to people with audiovisual disabilities. For readability, three items evaluated conversational writing style and use of a readability tool to determine the reading level of the text.
conclusionWe identified standards for the development of online patient health information. This proposed instrument can serve as a guideline to develop and improve how health information is presented on the internet.
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.