背景：数字通信已成为卫生保健专业人员科学和医学信息的主要来源。需要建立一种有效和可靠的方法来评估和监测互联网上发布的内容的质量。
目的：该项目的目的目的是为Neurodiem制定内容质量指南，一个独立的科学信息平台，致力于为医疗保健专业人员和神经科学家提供神经病学。这些内容质量指南旨在供（1）内容提供商用作满足内容质量标准的框架，以及（2）审阅者用作分析和评分内容质量的工具。
方法：使用5点量表设计了特定的科学标准，以衡量网站上发布的策划和原始内容的质量：摘要，(1)神经学家的来源可靠性和主题相关性，（2）结构，和(3)科学和教学价值；对于国会来说，(1)国会选举的相关性，(2)基于原始节目的大会报道，（3）个人摘要的科学和教学价值；对于专家观点和谈话，(1)可信度(作者身份)和神经学家的主题相关性，(2)科学和教学价值，(3)可靠性(参考文献)和格式。该标准每月使用一次，并由一个由公认的神经病学医学专家组成的独立科学委员会认可。
结果：3个领域的摘要内容质量（可靠性和相关性，结构,以及科学和教学价值）在准则实施后的第二个月增加。领域科学和教学值的平均得分为8.20/10。领域可靠性和相关性（8-9/10）和结构（45-55/60）的得分表明，随着时间的推移，这2个质量项目的维护更具挑战性。在实施内容质量准则后，随着时间的推移（15-25/25），谈话（以访谈或幻灯片支持的科学演示文稿的形式）和专家观点证明了高质量。
结论：我们的研究结果支持内容质量指南提供了（1）用于生成满足神经科医师教育需求的独立高质量内容的可靠框架，以及（2）是提高和保持科学质量水平的客观评估工具。这些标准和评分系统的使用可以作为标准和参考，为任何医学新闻或平台建立编辑策略和审查过程。
BACKGROUND: Digital communication has emerged as a major source of scientific and medical information for health care professionals. There is a need to set up an effective and reliable methodology to assess and monitor the quality of content that is published on the internet.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to develop content quality
guidelines for Neurodiem, an independent scientific information platform dedicated to neurology for health care professionals and neuroscientists. These content quality
guidelines are intended to be used by (1) content providers as a framework to meet content quality standards and (2) reviewers as a tool for analyzing and scoring quality of content.
METHODS: Specific scientific criteria were designed using a 5-point scale to measure the quality of curated and original content published on the website: for Summaries, (1) source reliability and topic relevance for neurologists, (2) structure, and (3) scientific and didactic value; for Congress highlights, (1) relevance of congress selection, (2) congress coverage based on the original program, and (3) scientific and didactic value of individual abstracts; for Expert points of view and talks, (1) credibility (authorship) and topic relevance for neurologists, (2) scientific and didactic value, and (3) reliability (references) and format. The criteria were utilized on a monthly basis and endorsed by an independent scientific committee of widely recognized medical experts in neurology.
RESULTS: Summary content quality for the 3 domains (reliability and relevance, structure, and scientific and didactic value) increased in the second month after the implementation of the
guidelines. The domain scientific and didactic value had a mean score of 8.20/10. Scores for the domains reliability and relevance (8-9/10) and structure (45-55/60) showed that the maintenance of these 2 quality items over time was more challenging. Talks (either in the format of interviews or slide deck-supported scientific presentations) and expert point of view demonstrated high quality after the implementation of the content quality
guidelines that was maintained over time (15-25/25).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that content quality
guidelines provide both (1) a reliable framework for generating independent high-quality content that addresses the educational needs of neurologists and (2) are an objective evaluation tool for improving and maintaining scientific quality level. The use of these criteria and this scoring system could serve as a standard and reference to build an editorial strategy and review process for any medical news or platforms.
