signpost iconCyrotherapy for localised prostate cancer (Cochrane Review)

Authors: Dublin N, Shelley M, Wilt TJ, Mason MD

Bottom Line:

This is a systematic review in progress

Publication details:

The objective of the review is to compare the efficacy and side-effects of cryotherapy with other primary treatments in the management of patients with localised prostate cancer

We assessed this page using an appraisal instrument developed by Minervation specifically for this project. This approach is still in development, so you should regard the assessments as a general guide. Click here to find out more, or to let us know how you think the approach could be improved.

Reliability comments:

  • This is a systematic review in progress.
  • The page links to relevant sources.
  • The review was first published 18 July 2007.
  • Website content is checked by relevant experts.
  • A clear statement about the website developers is required
  • A robust quality control procedure is reported

Usability comments:

  • The left hand submenu could be more prominently displayed.
  • The cover sheet for the protocol should appear first.
  • The website does not conform to web accessibility standards
  • Poor layout
  • Confusing and over-complicated for users

Scoring

Reliability
Item Score
Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? 1
Wiley Interscience appears all over the homepage of the Cochrane Library. There is an About Us section but this is hard to locate.
Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? 3
Is the page content checked by an expert? 2
The page has been checked by experts.
Is the page updated regularly? 3
This is a systematic review in progress
Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? 3
The page cites relevant sources.
Usability
Item Score
Is the site accessible without a login? 3
No registration required.
Does the site conform to web Accessibility standards? 0
Lida score 80%
Is the site design clear and transparent? 0
Very cluttered homepage, small font size, too many menu options. Very confusing.
Is the site design consistent from one page to another? 1
Not very consistent.
Can users find what they need on the site? 1
Just about. There is a browsing option but this is difficult to find and use. The search facility is confusing and it is difficult to view search results.
Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? 1
The left hand submenu could be more prominently displayed. The cover sheet for the protocol should appear first
Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): 30
We score each question out of three where:
0 = Never or Can't tell
1 = Sometimes or partly
2 = Mostly
3 = Always

Date rated

Source

The Cochrane Library

Currency

Good

Audience

Professionals

Publication Type

Systematic review

Format

Web page

Reliability

4.5 stars

Usability

0.5  stars

Find: Similar

Contact us about this summary

Your comment or question:
G6H3KW