Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 25, 2025
High Content Screening in Neurodegenerative Diseases
Published on: January 6, 2012
Digital Scientific Platform for Independent Content in Neurology: Rigorous Quality Guideline Development and
Daniel Kantor1,2, Martin Farlow3, Albert Ludolph4,5
1Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.
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.
