signpost iconBrachytherapy for the treatment of prostate cancer: assessment report May 2005

Bottom Line:

This is a publication undertaken by a health technology assessment organisation.

Publication details:

The aim of this report was to assess the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of brachytherapy for treating early localised prostate cancer compared with radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and no initial treatment or deferred treatment (active surveillance).

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:

  • References and additional links are provided.
  • Website content is checked by relevant experts.
  • This report is likely to be out of date.
  • The page was updated 17 May 2006.
  • It is clear who has produced this website
  • The methodology used is stated

Usability comments:

  • The format is clear.
  • 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
Website content is checked by relevant experts.
Is the page updated regularly? 1
The page was updated 17 May 2006.
Does the page cite relevant sources where appropriate? 3
References and additional links 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? 3
The format is clear.
Weighted total (Usability + (Reliability x 2)): 36
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

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)

Currency

Poor

Audience

Health professionals

Publication Type

Systematic review

Format

Web page

Reliability

5 stars

Usability

2.5 stars

Find: Similar

Contact us about this summary

Your comment or question:
G6H3KW