ArticleCroatian medical journal2007
Quality control of epidemiological lectures online: scientific evaluation of peer review.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Is the Supercourse useful for Latin America?Central Asian journal of global health · 2012Article
- Cancer and chronic diseases in minority populations: the need for more educational materials in Spanish for healthcare providers.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2011Article
- Multilayer and multimetric quality control: the Supercourse.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo examine the feasibility of using peer review for the quality control of online materials.
methodsWe analyzed the inter-rater agreement on the quality of epidemiological lectures online, based on the Global Health Network Supercourse lecture library. We examined the agreement among reviewers by looking at kappa statistics and intraclass correlations. Seven expert reviewers examined and rated a random sample of 100 Supercourse lectures. Their reviews were compared with the reviews of the lay Supercourse reviewers.
resultsBoth expert and non-expert reviewers rated lectures very highly, with a mean overall score of 4 out of 5. Kappa (Kappa) statistic and intraclass correlations indicated that inter-rater agreement for experts and non-experts was surprisingly low (below 0.4).
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this was the first time that poor inter-rater agreement was demonstrated for the Internet lectures. Future research studies need to evaluate the alternatives to the peer review system, especially for online materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17436390PMC2080509What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.