Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cooke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cooke, A.
Right arrow Articles by Gray, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of Public Health Medicine 24:261-267 (2002)
© 2002 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

Evaluating the quality of Internet-based information about alternative therapies: development of the BIOME guidelines


Alison Cooke
Lisa Gray

BIOME, Greenfield Medical Library, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH. ac{at}biome.ac.uk

Background The aim of the study was to develop guidelines for evaluating the quality of Internet-based information about alternative therapies.

Method An expert committee drafted a set of guidelines for evaluating information relating to alternative therapies. The guidelines were subsequently refined by testing them using resources already included in the BIOME databases. The first 20 unique web sites about alternative therapies for cancer retrieved using a general search engine and a United Kingdom focused search engine were then evaluated using the refined guidelines. Those undertaking the evaluations also completed a questionnaire relating to the face and content validity of the guidelines. The participants in the implementation stage were six content providers. Content providers identify, evaluate and describe resources for inclusion in the BIOME databases.

Results Only one web site out of 20 was selected by all six content providers for inclusion in the BIOME databases according to the alternative therapies guidelines. All content providers were in agreement regarding the exclusion of nine sites, but there were discrepancies regarding the remaining 10 resources. There was general agreement that the guidelines were easy to understand and that all points raised were necessary. However, there were differences of opinion regarding whether all issues were covered, whether the guidelines allowed the selection of only the highest quality resources, and whether the guidelines were applicable to a wide range of Internet-based resources about alternative therapies.

Conclusions The levels of inconsistencies in the results indicate the need for the further development of the BIOME guidelines for selecting information about alternative therapies.

Keywords: Internet, quality, complementary and alternative therapies, BIOME, evaluation guidelines


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann OncolHome page
K. Schmidt and E. Ernst
Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2004; 15(5): 733 - 742.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.