Table 2.

Methods of quality and accuracy assessment used in included studies, n 64

Assessment tools and methods	n	%
Quality* (n 41)
Criteria/quality metrics developed by authors	15	36·6
DISCERN Instrument	11	26·8
DISCERN not adapted, all 16 questions, possible score of 80	2	4·9
DISCERN adapted, questions 1–15, possible score of 75	2	4·9
DISCERN adapted, average score of all questions, possible score of 5	5	12·2
DISCERN adapted, questions removed	4	9·8
DISCERN adapted, questions amended	1	2·4
JAMA Benchmarks	7	17·1
HONCode Principles	3	7·3
Criteria developed for previous study	2	4·9
Global Quality Score	2	4·9
EQIP	1	2·4
Usefulness score	1	2·4
LIDA Instrument	1	2·4
HITI Criteria	1	2·4
International Patient Decision Aid Standards tool	1	2·4
MARS	1	2·4
QWEB tool	1	2·4
Accuracy* (n 47)
Assessed against authoritative guidelines	16	34·0
Assessed against academic literature	13	27·7
Assessed against national dietary guidelines	12	25·5
Professional knowledge/opinion	5	10·6
Accuracy reference not reported	3	6·4
Assessed against LID Dictionary of Metabolism and Nutrition	1	2·1
No. of raters performing quality/accuracy evaluations and reliability measures
2, independent evaluation of entire subsample	20	31·3
Not reported	13	20·3
≥ 3, independent evaluation of entire subsample	11	17·2
1, subsample independently evaluated by second rater	5	7·8
1, reliability of use of assessment tool established before analysis	3	4·7
1, no reliability measures	3	4·7
2, simultaneous assessments	2	3·1
1, all evaluations checked by another author	1	1·6

HONCode, Health on the Net Code; JAMA, Journal of American Medical Association; Health Information Technology Institute; EQIP, Ensuring Quality Information for Patients; IPDAS, International Patient Decision Aid Standards; LIDA, MinervaLIDAtion; MARS, Mobile App Rating Scale.

^*Studies may fall under more than one category.