http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/324/7337/569
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
|||||||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Systematic
reviews (incl meta-analyses): examples World
Wide Web |
Anna Gagliardi
a See Education and debate p 606 Graduate Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, b Departments of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, and Anaesthesia, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Correspondence to: A R Jadad, Director, Centre for Global eHealth Innovation,
University Health Network, Toronto General Hospital, Fraser Elliott Building,
4th Floor, 190 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
ajadad@uhnres.utoronto.ca
Objective: This study updates work published in 1998, which
found that of 47 rating instruments appearing on websites offering
health information, 14 described how they were developed, five
provided instructions for use, and none reported the interobserver
reliability and construct validity of the measurements.
Design: All rating instrument sites noted in the original
study were visited to ascertain whether they were still operating.
New rating instruments were identified by duplicating and enhancing
the comprehensive search of the internet and the medical and
information science literature used in the previous study. Eligible
instruments were evaluated as in the original study.
Results: 98 instruments used to assess the quality of websites
in the past five years were identified. Many of the rating
instruments identified in the original study were no longer
available. Of 51 newly identified rating instruments, only five
provided some information by which they could be evaluated. As with
the six sites identified in the original study that remained
available, none of these five instruments seemed to have been
validated.
Conclusions: Many incompletely developed rating instruments
continue to appear on websites providing health information, even
when the organisations that gave rise to those instruments no longer
exist. Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are
exploring alternative ways of helping people to find and use high
quality information available on the internet. Whether they are
needed or sustainable and whether they make a difference remain to be
shown.
|
What is already known on this topic A systematic review of the reliability and validity of such rating instruments, published in 1998, showed that they were incompletely developed What this study adds Of the 51 newly identified instruments, 11 were not functional, 35 were available but provided no information, and five provided information but were not validated Many researchers, organisations, and website developers are exploring alternative ways of helping people to find high quality information on the internet |
This article has been cited by other articles:
Read all Rapid Response responses
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.