Question | W | p-value | Level of agreement† |
1: Are the aims clear? | 0.56 | <0.001* | Moderate |
2: Does it achieve its aims? | . | . | N/A |
3: Is it relevant? | 0.54 | 0.001* | Moderate |
4: Is it clear what sources of information were used to compile the publication (other than the author or producer)? | 0.70 | <0.001* | Substantial |
5: Is it clear when the information used or reported in the publication was produced? | 0.64 | <0.001* | Substantial |
6: Is it balanced and unbiased? | 0.47 | 0.02* | Moderate |
7: Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information? | 0.70 | <0.001* | Substantial |
8: Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? | 0.53 | 0.001* | Moderate |
9: Does it describe how each treatment works? | 0.58 | <0.001* | Moderate |
10: Does it describe the benefits of each treatment? | 0.59 | <0.001* | Moderate |
11: Does it describe the risks of each treatment? | 0.63 | <0.001* | Substantial |
12: Does it describe what would happen if no treatment is used? | 0.50 | 0.007* | Moderate |
13: Does it describe how the treatment choices affect overall quality of life? | 0.55 | <0.001* | Moderate |
14: Is it clear that there may be more than one possible treatment choice? | 0.73 | <0.001* | Substantial |
15: Does it provide support for shared decision-making? | 0.62 | <0.001* | Substantial |
16: Based on the answers to all of the above questions, rate the overall quality of the publication as a source of information about treatment choices | 0.65 | <0.001* | Substantial |