Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31651406›Full record

ReviewJMIR formative research2019

A Comprehensive Framework to Evaluate Websites: Literature Review and Development of GoodWeb.

Rosalie Allison, Catherine Hayes, Cliodna A M McNulty, Vicki Young

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rosalie AllisonPublic Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1266-2549
Catherine HayesPublic Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6411-1023
Cliodna A M McNultyPublic Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4969-5360
Vicki YoungPublic Health England, Gloucester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9816-7858

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

human-computer interactionquality testingscoping studysoftware testingusabilityuser experience

Identifiers

PMID31651406
PMCPMC6914275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.