ArticlePloS one2017
Establishing a library of resources to help people understand key concepts in assessing treatment claims-The "Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library" (CARL).
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Developing critical thinking and decision-making skills for cancer information: the Informed Health Choice-Cancer online learning resource.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Evaluating student's ability to assess treatment claims: validating a German version of the Claim Evaluation Tools.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Knowledge and attitudes towards clinical trials among women with ovarian cancer: results of the ACTO study.Journal of ovarian research · 2022Observational
- The Norwegian public's ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Development of the informed health choices resources in four countries to teach primary school children to assess claims about treatment effects: a qualitative study employing a user-centred approach.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- Development of mass media resources to improve the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of treatments: a human-centred design approach.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2019Article
- The James Lind Initiative: books, websites and databases to promote critical thinking about treatment claims, 2003 to 2018.Research involvement and engagement · 2019Article
- Key Concepts for assessing claims about treatment effects and making well-informed treatment choices.F1000Research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior.
objectivesOur objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as 'intermediaries' of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups.
methodsCARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources-two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by 'Key Concepts' needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org).
resultsWe have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at 'Intermediaries', that is, 'teachers', 'communicators', 'advisors', 'researchers', as well as for independent 'learners'. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources.
conclusionsWe hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices.
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.