Evaluating Health Misinformation

Assessment Tools

Overview

What to consider when viewing a source of information:
 

The individual or group that is presenting this information
The validity of sources listed
The possible biases or private interests of the author

 

 

The following tools are often used in conjunction with grey literature searches, and can be adapted into spreadsheets.

 

DARTS is a checklist developed to assess the quality of online medical information.
 

DARTS
Date When was the content last updated?
Author Who created the content?
References Who created the content?
Type Are there valid references to other content?
Sponsor Is the content sponsored, and by whom?

 

QUEST is a 28-point system for evaluating online health information, and can be useful for comparing a large number of resources for a scoping or systematic review.*
 

Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST)
Authorship 0– No indication of authorship
1– Other indications
2– Author's name and qualification clearly stated
Attribution

0– No sources
1– Mentions some references; may not be credible or identifiable studies
2– Reference to at least one identifiable scientific study
3– References to identifiable scientific studies in >50% of claims
 
Conflict of interest 0– Endorsement of related intervention or treatment
1– Endorsement of educational products/services
2– Unbiased
 
Currency 0– No date present
1– Dated 5 years or older
2– Dated within 5 years
 
Complementarity 0– No support of patient-physician relationship
1– Support of patient-physician relationship
 
Tone 0– Author fully and unequivocally supports claims, using strong language
1– Author mainly supports claims with more cautious language, but does not discuss limitations
2– Author's claims are cautious and balanced, and discusses limitations/contrasting findings
 

*Adaptation of QUEST criteria is above. (For full criteria and calculation, please visit above cited link)

The AACODS checklist is a checklist designed for the evaluation and critical appraisal of grey literature. It covers the following areas:
 

AACODS

A checklist designed for the evaluation and critical appraisal of grey literature.
Authority Who is responsible for the content?
Accuracy

Is the content clear and consistent?
Coverage What is the scope?
 
Objectivity What are the underlying biases (stated or unstated)?
 
Date How current is the content?
 
Significance Is the resource meaningful, representative, or impactful?

 

This Guide to Evaluating Journals can help you understand the content in scientific journals and articles that may otherwise seem overwhelming.
 

Guide to Evaluating Journals
Section Content Description
Abstract Key points  an overview of the objectives, methods, results, and interpretation of the findings
Methods Type of research explains how the study will be conducted– observation, clinical trial, peer review, etc
Results Data Summaries and Analysis reveals the outcome of the study
Discussion/ Conclusion Relevance of results describes what the results mean and its application
References Sources of previous research lists published articles reviewed by the author prior to conducting study