|
Authors: Hummel S, Paisley S, Morgan A, Currie E, Brewer N
Bottom Line:
Publication details:
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:
- It is clear who has produced this website
- One key feature of a robust control procedure is not reported
Usability comments:
- The website does not conform to web accessibility standards
- Searching this website could be made easier
Scoring
Reliability
| Item |
Score |
| Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? |
3 |
| There is a section detailing who NCCHTA are, and a section explaining about the HTA programme. |
| Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? |
2 |
| It doesn't state explicitly in their methods section that there is searching and appraising involved in their methodology. |
| Is the page content checked by an expert? |
2 |
|
|
| Is the page updated regularly? |
0 |
| This review is likely to be out of date by now. |
| Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? |
3 |
|
|
Usability
| Item |
Score |
| Is the site accessible without a login? |
3 |
| No registration required. |
| Does the site conform to web Accessibility standards? |
2 |
| Lida score 94% |
| Is the site design clear and transparent? |
1 |
| The font size on the homepage is very small, especially the left hand menu. The options on the left hand menu are not very intuitive. It is not easy to work your way around the site. It is not apparent straight away how you might browse content. Publication information for each HTA looks messy. |
| Is the site design consistent from one page to another? |
2 |
| Site design is mostly consistent, except that the font style, size and colour changes which can be distracting. |
| Can users find what they need on the site? |
2 |
| it is not easy to browse content. Users have to look closely on the homepage to see a link for this. Publications are not ordered by topic and appear as one continuous long list. The search box looks overly complicated. Search results are displayed reasonably well. It is unclear how results are ranked. |
| Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? |
2 |
|
|
| Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): |
32 |
We score each question out of three where:
| 0 |
= Never or Can't tell |
| 1 |
= Sometimes or partly |
| 2 |
= Mostly |
| 3 |
= Always |
|
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for early localised prostate cancer: a systematic review
