Chumber Sundeep, Huber Jörg, Ghezzi Pietro
Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK (Mr Chumber, Dr Ghezzi)
University of Brighton, School of Health Sciences, Falmer, Brighton, UK (Dr Huber)
Diabetes Educ. 2015 Feb;41(1):95-105. doi: 10.1177/0145721714560772. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
The purpose of this work was to evaluate the criteria used to assess the quality of information on diabetic neuropathy on the Internet.
Different search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing, and Ask) and 1 governmental health website (MedlinePlus) were studied. The websites returned (200 for each search engine) were then classified according to their affiliation (eg, commercial, professional, patient groups). A scoring system was devised from the literature to assess quality of information. Websites were also analyzed using the 2 most widely used instruments for assessing the quality of health information, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scoring system and the Health On the Net Foundation (HON) certification.
Professional websites or health portals scored better according to most criteria. Google and MedlinePlus returned results scoring significantly higher than other engines in some of the criteria. The use of different instruments gave different results and indicates that the JAMA score and the HON certification may not be sufficient ones.
This methodology could be used to evaluate the reliability and trustworthiness of information on the Internet on different topics to identify topic areas or websites where the available information is not appropriate.
本研究旨在评估用于评估互联网上糖尿病神经病变信息质量的标准。
研究了不同的搜索引擎（谷歌、雅虎、必应和Ask）以及1个政府健康网站（MedlinePlus）。然后，根据返回网站的所属机构（如商业、专业、患者群体）进行分类。从文献中设计了一个评分系统来评估信息质量。还使用了两种最广泛用于评估健康信息质量的工具对网站进行分析，即美国医学会（JAMA）评分系统和健康在线基金会（HON）认证。
根据大多数标准，专业网站或健康门户网站得分更高。谷歌和MedlinePlus返回的结果在某些标准上得分明显高于其他引擎。使用不同的工具得出了不同的结果，这表明JAMA评分和HON认证可能并不充分。
这种方法可用于评估互联网上不同主题信息的可靠性和可信度，以识别可用信息不合适的主题领域或网站。
