ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
A Clinical Tool (CUE-tool) for Health Care Professionals to Assess the Usability and Quality of the Content of Medical Information Websites: Electronic Delphi Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined sleep intervention and nutritional support to enhance postoperative recovery in gastric cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Randomized controlled trial of an app for cancer pain management.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Trial
- Validation of the Simplified Chinese Clear Communication Index Using Diabetes Education Materials: Instrument Adaptation and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Development of a Patient-Centered Daily Foot Self-Care Protocol for High-Risk Diabetic Foot Patients Based on Checklist Management Model: A Delphi Study.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the measurement properties of online health information quality assessment tools: A systematic review.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Review
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs patients are increasingly searching for information about their medical condition on the internet, there is a need for health professionals to be able to guide patients toward reliable and suitable information sources on the internet.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to develop a clinical tool for health care professionals to assess the usability and quality of the content of websites containing medical information that could be recommended to patients.
methodsA 3-round modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study was conducted with 20 health care professionals.
resultsIn round one of the eDelphi study, of the 68 items initially created, 41 items (29 on usability and 12 on content) were rated as important or very important by more than half of the panel and thus selected for further evaluation in round two. In round two, of the 41 items chosen from round 1, 19 were selected (9 on usability and 10 on content) as important or very important by more than half of the panel for further evaluation. As a result of round three, 2 items were combined as a single item, leaving the instrument with 18 items in total (8 on usability and 10 on content). The tool is freely accessible online.
conclusionsThe CUE-tool can be used to (1) evaluate the usability and reliability of the content of websites before recommending them to patients as a good information source; (2) identify websites that do not have reliable content or may be difficult for patients to use; (3) develop quality websites by using the criteria in the CUE-tool; and (4) identify different qualities between different websites.
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.