ReviewBMC medical informatics and decision making2023
Development and analysis of quality assessment tools for different types of patient information - websites, decision aids, question prompt lists, and videos.
Review in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2023. 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.
- Article
- Development and validation of checklists for standardized patients in dental education for special care health needs patients.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Neonatal Factors Associated with Mortality Among Preterm Infants Admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care in a Peruvian National Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Perceived acceptability of a prototype toolkit to support patients and informal caregivers to express their perspectives in palliative care conversations.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Professionalism vs. engagement: quality of SSc information on WeChat.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of YouTube Videos on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for Cancer Using a Newly Developed Tool.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur working group has developed a set of quality assessment tools for different types of patient information material. In this paper we review and evaluate these tools and their development process over the past eight years.
methodsWe compared the content and structure of quality assessment tools for websites, patient decision aids (PDAs), question prompt lists (QPLs), and videos. Using data from their various applications, we calculated inter-rater concordance using Kendall's W.
resultsThe assessment tools differ in content, structure and length, but many core aspects remained throughout the development over time. We found a relatively large variance regarding the amount of quality aspects combined into one item, which may influence the weighting of those aspects in the final scores of evaluated material. Inter-rater concordance was good in almost all applications of the tool. Subgroups of similar expertise showed higher concordance rates than the overall agreement.
conclusionAll four assessment tools are ready to be used by people of different expertise. However, varying expertise may lead to some differences in the resulting assessments when using the tools. The lay and patient perspective needs to be further explored and taken into close consideration when refining the instruments.
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.