WEB SITES

• Developers and sponsors: Are their identities clearly stated? Do they have expertise (or use experts) in the content area? Is there a way to contact them (e-mail, phone, address)? Are conflicts of interest or biases disclosed?
• Purpose: Is the site's purpose and intended audience clearly stated? Do they position themselves as the sole source of information on a topic, or discredit other sources of knowledge? If so, it's usually a sign of quackery.

• Content: Is the original source of the content identified, and likely to be reliable and without bias? Is the content current, and updated regularly? How is the content's validity assessed?

• Design: Is the site well-organized and easy to navigate? Are the reading level, graphics, audio, and other features appropriate for the intended users?
• Confidentiality: Are users' personal information protected? Who, if anyone, has access to information about users?

Also see the websites of the Science Panel for Interactive Health Communications and the Internet Healthcare Coalition.

MEDICAL JOURNAL AND NEWS ARTICLES

• Is the headline or story presentation sensationalized -- a tactic used mainly to grab attention?

• Is there "context" for the story, such background information that can help you evaluate the importance of a new finding?

• Is there "fair balance" in the reporting, such as the presentation of varying points of view?

• If the story is on the web or in print, is it positioned near an advertisement that somehow ties into the story? On closer inspection, is the story identified as an advertisement? If not, might it still be influenced by the nearby advertisement? If the story is on television or radio, does it somehow tie in to one of the show's advertisers?