ArticleBMJ open2017
Measuring ability to assess claims about treatment effects: the development of the 'Claim Evaluation Tools'.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- A Critical Health Literacy Podcast to Counter Health Misinformation at Scale: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Teaching Australian high school students to think critically about health claims: a cluster randomized trial.Health education research · 2023Trial
- Feasibility of contextualizing the Informed Health Choices learning resources in Italy: A pilot study in a primary school in Florence.F1000Research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Article
- The People's Review protocol: planning an innovative study powered by the public.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Critical thinking about health and treatments in the United States: a cross-sectional assessment of parents and undergraduate college students.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Piloting the informed health choices resources in Barcelona primary schools: A mixed methods study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Teaching critical thinking about health information and choices in secondary schools: human-centred design of digital resources.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Contextualizing critical thinking about health using digital technology in secondary schools in Kenya: a qualitative analysis.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2022Article
- Using claims in the media to teach essential concepts for evidence-based healthcare.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the development of the Claim Evaluation Tools, a set of flexible items to measure people's ability to assess claims about treatment effects.
settingMethodologists and members of the community (including children) in Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Norway, the UK and Australia.
participantsIn the iterative development of the items, we used purposeful sampling of people with training in research methodology, such as teachers of evidence-based medicine, as well as patients and members of the public from low-income and high-income countries. Development consisted of 4 processes: (1) determining the scope of the Claim Evaluation Tools and development of items; (2) expert item review and feedback (n=63); (3) cognitive interviews with children and adult end-users (n=109); and (4) piloting and administrative tests (n=956).
resultsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database currently includes a battery of multiple-choice items. Each item begins with a scenario which is intended to be relevant across contexts, and which can be used for children (from age 10 and above), adult members of the public and health professionals. People with expertise in research methods judged the items to have face validity, and end-users judged them relevant and acceptable in their settings. In response to feedback from methodologists and end-users, we simplified some text, explained terms where needed, and redesigned formats and instructions.
conclusionsThe Claim Evaluation Tools database is a flexible resource from which researchers, teachers and others can design measurement instruments to meet their own requirements. These evaluation tools are being managed and made freely available for non-commercial use (on request) through Testing Treatments TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: PACTR201606001679337 and PACTR201606001676150; Pre-results.
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.