ReviewJMIR formative research2019
A Comprehensive Framework to Evaluate Websites: Literature Review and Development of GoodWeb.
Review in JMIR formative research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of the Online Portal "Embryotox" in Routine Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Adherence to recommended immunization schedule during adolescence: findings of a cross-sectional study in the Southern part of Italy.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Perceived impact of a decision-aid and planning tool for family building after cancer for young adult female cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- PSPNET Families Wellbeing Hub: A preliminary evaluation of online upstream supports for public safety personnel families.Journal of military, veteran and family health · 2024Article
- Developing an Instrument to Evaluate the Quality of Dementia Websites.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Co-Development of a Web Application (COVID-19 Social Site) for Long-Term Care Workers ("Something for Us"): User-Centered Design and Participatory Research Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Validation of the German eHealth impact questionnaire for online health information users affected by multiple sclerosis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Development and evaluation of a website with patients experiences of multiple sclerosis: a mixed methods study.BMC neurology · 2022Article
- 'That would have been the perfect thing after diagnosis': development of a digital lifestyle management application in multiple sclerosis.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2022Article
- Physician perspectives on traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine and the national evidence-based Japanese integrative medicine information website: A mixed-method study.Integrative medicine research · 2021Article
- Procedures of User-Centered Usability Assessment for Digital Solutions: Scoping Review of Reviews Reporting on Digital Solutions Relevant for Older Adults.JMIR human factors · 2021Article
- Evaluation of an Educational Health Website on Infections and Antibiotics in England: Mixed Methods, User-Centered Approach.JMIR formative research · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAttention is turning toward increasing the quality of websites and quality evaluation to attract new users and retain existing users.
objectiveThis scoping study aimed to review and define existing worldwide methodologies and techniques to evaluate websites and provide a framework of appropriate website attributes that could be applied to any future website evaluations.
methodsWe systematically searched electronic databases and gray literature for studies of website evaluation. The results were exported to EndNote software, duplicates were removed, and eligible studies were identified. The results have been presented in narrative form.
resultsA total of 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. The extracted data included type of website, aim or purpose of the study, study populations (users and experts), sample size, setting (controlled environment and remotely assessed), website attributes evaluated, process of methodology, and process of analysis. Methods of evaluation varied and included questionnaires, observed website browsing, interviews or focus groups, and Web usage analysis. Evaluations using both users and experts and controlled and remote settings are represented. Website attributes that were examined included usability or ease of use, content, design criteria, functionality, appearance, interactivity, satisfaction, and loyalty. Website evaluation methods should be tailored to the needs of specific websites and individual aims of evaluations. GoodWeb, a website evaluation guide, has been presented with a case scenario.
conclusionsThis scoping study supports the open debate of defining the quality of websites, and there are numerous approaches and models to evaluate it. However, as this study provides a framework of the existing literature of website evaluation, it presents a guide of options for evaluating websites, including which attributes to analyze and options for appropriate methods.
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.