Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review
Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.318.7184.647
复制
发表时间：
1999-03-06
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Maxfield, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kim, P;Eng, TR;Maxfield, A
目的回顾已发表的万维网健康相关信息评价标准，找出存在共识的领域。利用Medline和Lexis-Nerds数据库以及以下互联网搜索引擎：Yahoo！、Excite、Altavista、WebCrawler、HotBot、Infoseek、Magellan Internet Guide和Lycos，对万维网网站和同行评议的医学期刊进行设计搜索，以明确网上健康相关信息的评价标准。结果确定了29个已发表的评分工具和期刊文章，它们都有明确的健康相关网站评估标准。在从这些工具和文章中提取的165项标准中，132项(80%)被归入12个特定类别之一，33项(20%)因缺乏特异性或独一无二而被归类为杂项。最常被引用的标准涉及网站的内容、设计和美观、作者、赞助商或开发者的披露、信息流通(包括更新频率、新鲜度、网站维护)、来源的权威性、易用性以及可访问性和可用性。结论结果表明，许多作者同意评估健康相关网站的关键标准，努力制定共识标准可能会有所帮助。下一步是确定和评估一套明确、简单、公众可以理解和使用的共识标准。
Objective To review published criteria for specifically evaluating health related information on the world wide web, and to identify areas of consensus.Design Search of world wide web sites and peer reviewed medical journals for explicit criteria for evaluating health related information on the web, using Medline and Lexis-Nerds databases, and the following internet search engines: Yahoo!, Excite, Altavista, Webcrawler, HotBot, Infoseek, Magellan Internet Guide, and Lycos. Criteria were extracted and grouped into categories.Results 29 published rating tools and journal articles were identified that had explicit criteria for assessing health related web sites. Of the 165 criteria extracted fr om these tools and articles, 132 (80%) were grouped under one of 12 specific categories and 33 (20%,) were grouped as miscellaneous because they lacked specificity or were unique. The most frequently cited criteria were those dealing with content, design and aesthetics of site, disclosure of authors, sponsors, or developers, currency of information (includes frequency of update, freshness, maintenance of site), authority of source, ease of use, and accessibility and availability.Conclusions Results suggest that many authors agree on key criteria for evaluating health related web sites, and that efforts to develop consensus criteria may be helpful. The next step is to identify and assess a clear, simple set of consensus criteria that the general public can understand and use.