The purpose of the rating system presented below is to assist in evaluating websites that present health information used by health consumers. The system is intended to help the user determine if the metadata elements used as proxies for the accuracy of health information are present. Even if metadata elements are present, the rater should use his or her own judgment regarding validity and use of such information. As always, users should check with their health care professionals before acting upon information acquired from the World Wide Web.

Authorship

Question: Who wrote or published the piece, an individual or organization with recognized credentials?
(0) Sufficient information to answer question not present.
(1) Sufficient information to answer question present.

Attribution

Question: Did the author cite references to the literature or widely accepted guidelines in making recommendations?
(0) Sufficient information to answer question not present.
(1) Sufficient information to answer question present.

Disclosure

Question: Did the writer make clear the source of funding for the piece, a private foundation or federal grant, a for-profit group, etc.?
(0) Sufficient information to answer question not present.
(1) Sufficient information to answer question present.

Currency

Question: Is it clear when the material was first posted and how recently it has been updated?
(0) Sufficient information to answer question not present.
(1) Sufficient information to answer question present.

Website Scoring: The sum of all four metadata scores give total score of 0-4.

0 = Totally Unacceptable -- Website unacceptable in every metadata category and should not be used in any manner for information.
1 = Mostly Unreliable -- Website deficient in most metadata categories and should be used only as last resort.
2 = Marginally Acceptable -- Website deficient in a majority of metadata categories and should be used with caution.
3 = Fairly Reliable -- Website marginally deficient in only a few categories and can be used in most circumstances.
4 = Fully Acceptable -- Website meets expectations for reliability in every metadata category and can be used with full confidence to the extent that the proxies for accuracy used are valid.

*This system is based on the work of Silberg WM et al. (1997) JAMA 277(15):1244-45 as adopted by the Huffington Center on Aging, Houston, Texas. The scale was initially devised by Chris Perkins, M.S., a Baylor College of Medicine student, during his summer internship, June 2002 and revised by Thomas A. Teasdale, DrPH and Robert E. Roush, EdD, MPH in November 2002.

back to top