Skip to main content

Table 1 Evaluation results of each item in DISCERN

From: Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts

DISCERN item

Distribution of score level, n (%) a

Median

(IQR b)

Poor

Fair

Good

Part 1: reliability of the article

1. Provides clear aims

34 (25.00)

48 (35.29)

54 (39.71)

3 (1.75)

2. Achieves its aims c

4 (3.39)

14 (11.86)

100 (84.75)

4.5 (1)

3. Provides relevant information

10 (7.35)

29 (21.32)

97 (71.33)

4 (2)

4. Provides sources of information

99 (72.79)

19 (13.97)

18 (13.24)

2 (2)

5. Provides information production date

88 (64.71)

40 (29.41)

8 (5.88)

2 (1)

6. Is balanced and unbiased

16 (11.76)

90 (66.18)

30 (22.06)

3 (0)

7. Provides additional sources of information

101 (74.26)

0 (0)

35 (25.74)

2 (2)

8. Refers to areas of uncertainty

81 (59.56)

34 (25.00)

21 (15.44)

2 (1)

Part 2: specific details of information on treatment choices

9. Describes how each treatment works

40 (29.41)

19 (13.97)

77 (56.62)

4 (3)

10. Describes benefits of each treatment

41 (30.15)

25 (18.38)

70 (51.47)

4 (3)

11. Describes risks of each treatment

67 (49.26)

21 (15.44)

48 (35.30)

3 (3)

12. Describes what would happen if any treatment is not used

90 (66.18)

16 (11.76)

30 (22.06)

1 (2)

13. Describes how treatment affects quality of life

89 (65.44)

11 (8.09)

36 (26.47)

1 (3)

14. Clarifies that there may be more than one treatment choice

41 (30.15)

43 (31.62)

52 (38.23)

3 (2.75)

15. Supports shared decision-making

102 (75.00)

12 (8.82)

22 (16.18)

1 (1.75)

Part 3:

16. Overall quality

38 (27.94)

80 (58.82)

18 (13.24)

3 (1)

  1. a Rank based on a 5-point Likert scale: good (4–5), fair (3), and poor (1–2)
  2. b IQR: interquartile range
  3. c Excluding 18 articles without clear aims