Bottom Line:
The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) have evaluated this review as potentially meeting the CRD quality criteria and a structured abstract is in the process of being written
Publication details:
Full reference of original review:
Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature
Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Journal of Urology 2004; 171(6 Part 1): 2122-2127
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 an evaluation of a review published in 2004
- References are provided
- Website content is checked by relevant experts
- It is clear who has produced this website
- The methodology used is stated
Usability comments:
- A bottom-line is required
- The website does not conform to web accessibility standards
- Search facility could be improved
Scoring
Reliability
| Item |
Score |
| Is it clear who has developed the web site and what their objectives are? |
3 |
| There is a brief description on the homepage about what CRD do, and there is an About Us section. |
| Does the site report a robust quality control procedure? |
3 |
| CRD state their methodology used to produce their reviews and the DARE database. |
| Is the page content checked by an expert? |
3 |
| The page has been checked by an expert. |
| Is the page updated regularly? |
0 |
| The page has not been updated since 23 July 2004. |
| Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? |
3 |
| References are provided |
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 87% |
| Is the site design clear and transparent? |
1 |
| The homepage is uncluttered but the small font size of the main menu lets it down. The menu headings may not be clearly understood by users. Knowledge of who CRD is, is required to use this site best. |
| Is the site design consistent from one page to another? |
2 |
| The design is mostly consistent except that the font size changes quite a bit from readable to unreadable! |
| Can users find what they need on the site? |
1 |
| It is possible to browse CRD's publications by topic, although a health topic menu on the homepage would be better. There is a search box, results are displayed reasonable well, but it is unclear how they are ranked. Users need to know to search the databases separately to find additional relevant information for prostate cancer. Prostate cancer doesn't appear in their site map either. |
| Is the format of information clear and appropriate for the audience? |
1 |
| A bottom-line is required |
| 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 |
|
Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature
