Table 2 Generic quality and risk of bias (domain 2). Sub-domains with a range of items were assessed. Scores between 0 and 2 were used
From: German dentists’ websites on periodontitis have low quality of information
Sub-domain | Item | Median (25th/75th percentiles, min-max) |
|---|---|---|
Reliability | Are the aims clear? | 2 (2/2; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it clear who pays for it? | 1 (1/1; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is there a declaration of the objectives of the people who run the site? | 2 (2/2; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it clear who runs the site? | 0 (0/2; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it current? | 2 (2/2; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it clear what information sources were used? | 0 (0/1; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it clear when the information sources were produced? | 0 (0/0; 0–2) |
Reliability | Is it balanced and unbiased? | 2 (2/2; 0–2) |
Reliability | Does it provide details of additional sources? | 0 (0/1; 0–2) |
Reliability | Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? | 0 (0/1; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it describe how each treatment works? | 1 (0/1; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it describe the benefit of each treatment? | 1 (0/1; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it describe the risk of each treatment? | 0 (0/0; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it describe what would happen if no treatment is used? | 0 (0/0; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it describe how the choice of treatment affect quality of life? | 0 (0/1; 0–2) |
Quality | Is it clear that there may be more than one possible treatment? | 1 (0/1; 0–2) |
Quality | Does it provide support for shared decision making? | 1 (1/2; 0–2) |