Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39896138›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient experience2025

Developing and Validating a User-Friendly Quality Benchmark: Enhancing the Integrity of Online Health Information for Patients and Clinicians.

Lubna Daraz, Cicek Dogu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient experience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Lubna DarazSchool of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4502-835X
Cicek DoguSchool of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality of online health information remains one of the leading causes in combating misinformation for patients and the public. However, assessing online health content is challenging for those without medical expertise. This article briefly outlines the development and validation of an evidence-based online health information evaluation tool. A systematic approach with five phases was adopted: (1) synthesizing the current state of the reliability of online health information, (2) conducting content analysis of existing quality assessment tools, (3) drafting a comprehensive list of quality criteria, (4) developing and validating a quality benchmark, and (5) disseminating the results. Collaborative input from healthcare providers, patients, caregivers, and the public developed and validated a quality benchmark. The quality benchmark consists of 5 quality criteria and 8 accompanying descriptions that define each quality criterion. A printable version of the benchmark is provided in the article to facilitate easy implementation by both patients and healthcare providers. The benchmark is recommended for use and intended to empower patients with a skill set to navigate through online misinformation, facilitating access to credible health information and promoting improved health outcomes.

Indexed as

benchmarkhealthcare providershealth informationinternetpatientsquality

Identifiers

PMID39896138
PMCPMC11783465

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.