SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020
Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the quality and reliability of infertility information on Chinese social media platforms Bilibili and TikTok : a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Where do UK clinicians find information at the point of care? A pragmatic, exploratory study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Automated Credibility Assessment of Web-Based Health Information Considering Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode): Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- An integrative review protocol on interventions to improve users' ability to identify trustworthy online health information.PloS one · 2023Article
- A Tool to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals (CAPOCI): Design and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Using a Secure, Continually Updating, Web Source Processing Pipeline to Support the Real-Time Data Synthesis and Analysis of Scientific Literature: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUser-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed.
objectiveThis systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools.
methodsA systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated.
resultsIncluded in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined.
conclusionsThe 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019122565; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122565.
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.