Quality indicators for blogs and podcasts with ≥90% consensus among medical education experts within the three domains of credibility, content and design
| Quality indicator | Domain/subtheme | Blogs (% consensus) | Podcasts (% consensus) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the authorities (eg, author, editor, publisher) that created the resource list their conflicts of interest? | Credibility/bias | 100 | 100 |
| Is the identity of the resource's author clear? | Credibility/transparency | 95 | 95 |
| Does the resource make a clear distinction between fact and opinion? | Credibility/bias | 95 | 95 |
| Is the information presented in the resource accurate? | Content/academic rigour | 94 | 100 |
| Does the resource employ technologies that are universally available to allow learners with standard equipment and software access? | Design/functionality | 94 | |
| Does the resource cite its references? | Credibility/use of other resources | 93 | |
| Are the resource's statements consistent with its references? | Credibility/use of other resources | 93 | |
| Does the resource clearly differentiate between advertisement and content? | Credibility/bias | 91 | 90 |
| Is the resource transparent about who was involved in its creation? | Credibility/transparency | 91 | 90 |
| Is the content of this educational resource of good quality? | Content | 91 | 90 |
| Is the content of the resource professional? | Content/professionalism | 91 | 90 |
| Is the resource useful and relevant for its intended audience? | Content/orientation | 91 | 90 |
| Is the author well qualified to provide information on the topic? | Credibility/transparency | 91 |