Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34609314›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

A Tool to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals (CAPOCI): Design and Validation Study.

Gerlinde Lenaerts, Geertruida E Bekkering, Martine Goossens, Leen De Coninck, Nicolas Delvaux, Sam Cordyn, Jef Adriaenssens, Bert Aertgeerts, Patrik Vankrunkelsven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Gerlinde LenaertsBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0720-7373
Geertruida E BekkeringBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3845-1507
Martine GoossensBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-2135-8680
Leen De ConinckBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1060-2422
Nicolas DelvauxDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7335-4075
Sam CordynFederation of the White and Yellow Cross of Flanders, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1893-0014
Jef AdriaenssensBelgian Health Care Knowledge Centre, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6994-2408
Bert AertgeertsBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1142-5402
Patrik VankrunkelsvenBelgian Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1047-9732

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUser-friendly information at the point of care for health care professionals should be well structured, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and trustworthy. The reliability of information and the associated methodological process must be clear. There is no standard tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care (POC) information.

objectiveWe aim to develop and validate a new tool for assessment of trustworthiness of evidence-based POC resources to enhance the quality of POC resources and facilitate evidence-based practice.

methodsWe designed the Critical Appraisal of Point-of-Care Information (CAPOCI) tool based on the criteria important for assessment of trustworthiness of POC information, reported in a previously published review. A group of health care professionals and methodologists (the authors of this paper) defined criteria for the CAPOCI tool in an iterative process of discussion and pilot testing until consensus was reached. In the next step, all criteria were subject to content validation with a Delphi study. We invited an international panel of 10 experts to rate their agreement with the relevance and wording of the criteria and to give feedback. Consensus was reached when 70% of the experts agreed. When no consensus was reached, we reformulated the criteria based on the experts' comments for a next round of the Delphi study. This process was repeated until consensus was reached for each criterion. In a last step, the interrater reliability of the CAPOCI tool was calculated with a 2-tailed Kendall tau correlation coefficient to quantify the agreement between 2 users who piloted the CAPOCI tool on 5 POC resources. Two scoring systems were tested: a 3-point ordinal scale and a 7-point Likert scale.

resultsAfter validation, the CAPOCI tool was designed with 11 criteria that focused on methodological quality and author-related information. The criteria assess authorship, literature search, use of preappraised evidence, critical appraisal of evidence, expert opinions, peer review, timeliness and updating, conflict of interest, and commercial support. Interrater agreement showed substantial agreement between 2 users for scoring with the 3-point ordinal scale (τ=.621, P<.01) and scoring with the 7-point Likert scale (τ=.677, P<.01).

conclusionsThe CAPOCI tool may support validation teams in the assessment of trustworthiness of POC resources. It may also provide guidance for producers of POC resources.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPoint-of-Care SystemsConsensusHumansReproducibility of Resultsevidence-based medicineevidence-based practicehealth care qualityinformation sciencepoint-of-care systemspractice guidelines as a topic

Identifiers

PMID34609314
PMCPMC8527381

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.