ArticleJMIR aging2018
A Tool That Assesses the Evidence, Transparency, and Usability of Online Health Information: Development and Reliability Assessment.
Article in JMIR aging, 2018. 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, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Terminology and Definitions of Racial Health Equity in Prominent Health Websites: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled 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
- 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
- Evaluation of AI Chatbot Responses to a Standardized Patient Query on Myelin Oligodendrocyte Glycoprotein Antibody-Associated Disease: Cross-Sectional Content Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Development of a robust corpus for automated evaluation of online health information in Chinese using the DISCERN scale.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Comparison of ChatGPT and Google in addressing patients' questions on robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty.Joint diseases and related surgery · 2026Article
- Health information quality of online newspaper articles in Korea.Korean journal of family medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Review
- On Acoustic Voice Quality Index measurement reliability in digital health applications: a narrative review and empirical evaluation of speech sample length requirements.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Reliability and quality of information provided by artificial intelligence chatbots on post-contrast acute kidney injury: an evaluation of diagnostic, preventive, and treatment guidance.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Exploring Resource-Sharing Behaviors for Finding Relevant Health Resources: Analysis of an Online Ovarian Cancer Community.JMIR cancer · 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
- Using the Google™ Search Engine for Health Information: Is There a Problem? Case Study: Supplements for Cancer.Current developments in nutrition · 2021Article
- The Quality of Infectious Disease Hospital Websites in Poland in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Developing a Quality Benchmark for Determining the Credibility of Web Health Information- a Protocol of a Gold Standard Approach.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Arthroplasty information on the internet: quality or quantity?Bone & joint open · 2020Article
- Examining Predictors of Real-World User Engagement with Self-Guided eHealth Interventions: Analysis of Mobile Apps and Websites Using a Novel Dataset.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet is commonly used by older adults to obtain health information and this trend has markedly increased in the past decade. However, studies illustrate that much of the available online health information is not informed by good quality evidence, developed in a transparent way, or easy to use. Furthermore, studies highlight that the general public lacks the skills necessary to distinguish between online products that are credible and trustworthy and those that are not. A number of tools have been developed to assess the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information; however, many have not been assessed for reliability or ease of use.
objectiveThe first objective of this study was to determine if a tool assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information exists that is easy and quick to use and has good reliability. No such tool was identified, so the second objective was to develop such a tool and assess it for reliability when used to assess online health information on topics of relevant to optimal aging.
methodsAn electronic database search was conducted between 2002 and 2012 to identify published papers describing tools that assessed the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information. Papers were retained if the tool described was assessed for reliability, assessed the quality of evidence used to create online health information, and was quick and easy to use. When no one tool met expectations, a new instrument was developed and tested for reliability. Reliability between two raters was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for each item at two time points. SPSS Statistics 22 software was used for statistical analyses and a one-way random effects model was used to report the results. The overall ICC was assessed for the instrument as a whole in July 2015. The threshold for retaining items was ICC>0.60 (ie, "good" reliability).
resultsAll tools identified that evaluated online health information were either too complex, took a long time to complete, had poor reliability, or had not undergone reliability assessment. A new instrument was developed and assessed for reliability in April 2014. Three items had an ICC<0.60 (ie, "good" reliability). One of these items was removed ("minimal scrolling") and two were retained but reworded for clarity. Four new items were added that assessed the level of research evidence that informed the online health information and the tool was retested in July 2015. The total ICC score showed excellent agreement with both single measures (ICC=0.988; CI 0.982-0.992) and average measures (ICC=0.994; CI 0.991-0.996).
conclusionsThe results of this study suggest that this new tool is reliable for assessing the evidence, transparency, and usability of online health information that is relevant to optimal aging.
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.