ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2016
Derivation of Two Critical Appraisal Scores for Trainees to Evaluate Online Educational Resources: A METRIQ Study.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Computer-Aided Diagnosis: Artificial Intelligence as a "Digital Mentor" for POCUS Image Acquisition and Quality Assurance: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Development and Initial Validity Evidence for the EvaLeR Tool: Assessing Quality of Emergency Medicine Educational Resources.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- From submission to publication: A practical guide to peer review publication for medical educators.AEM education and training · 2025Review
- Fundamentals of telehealth: A learning compendium for residents.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- SAEM systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Gastrointestinal illnesses.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Pediatric respiratory infectious disease.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Listen to your heart: a critical analysis of popular cardiology podcasts.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Evolution in Congenital Cardiology Education: The Rise of Digital-Learning Tools.CJC pediatric and congenital heart disease · 2023Review
- Guidelines: The Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows of Creating Open Educational Resources.Perspectives on medical education · 2023Article
- Systematic online academic resources (SOAR) review: Sickle cell disorders.AEM education and training · 2022Article
- Assessing on-line medical education resources: A primer for acute care medical professionals and others.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2022Article
- Systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Endocrine, metabolic, and nutritional disorders.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Holes in the FOAM: An Analysis of Curricular Comprehensiveness in Online Educational Resources.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- The revised Approved Instructional Resources score: An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources.AEM education and training · 2021Article
- Expanding Free Open-Access Medical Education.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- FOAM Impact: The Influence of Open-access Medical Education on Practice Uptake.AEM education and training · 2020Article
- A Short History of Free Open Access Medical Education. The Past, Present, and Future.ATS scholar · 2020Article
- Article
- Systematic Online Academic Resource (SOAR) Review: Renal and Genitourinary.AEM education and training · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOnline education resources (OERs), like blogs and podcasts, increasingly augment or replace traditional medical education resources such as textbooks and lectures. Trainees' ability to evaluate these resources is poor, and few quality assessment aids have been developed to assist them. This study aimed to derive a quality evaluation instrument for this purpose.
methodsWe used a three-phase methodology. In Phase 1, a previously derived list of 151 OER quality indicators was reduced to 13 items using data from published consensus-building studies (of medical educators, expert podcasters, and expert bloggers) and subsequent evaluation by our team. In Phase 2, these 13 items were converted to seven-point Likert scales used by trainee raters (n=40) to evaluate 39 OERs. The reliability and usability of these 13 rating items was determined using responses from trainee raters, and top items were used to create two OER quality evaluation instruments. In Phase 3, these instruments were compared to an external certification process (the ALiEM AIR certification) and the gestalt evaluation of the same 39 blog posts by 20 faculty educators.
resultsTwo quality-evaluation instruments were derived with fair inter-rater reliability: the METRIQ-8 Score (Inter class correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.30, p<0.001) and the METRIQ-5 Score (ICC=0.22, p<0.001). Both scores, when calculated using the derivation data, correlated with educator gestalt (Pearson's r=0.35, p=0.03 and r=0.41, p<0.01, respectively) and were related to increased odds of receiving an ALiEM AIR certification (odds ratio=1.28, p=0.03; OR=1.5, p=0.004, respectively).
conclusionTwo novel scoring instruments with adequate psychometric properties were derived to assist trainees in evaluating OER quality and correlated favourably with gestalt ratings of online educational resources by faculty educators. Further testing is needed to ensure these instruments are accurate when applied by trainees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.