Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28738058›Full record

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).

John C Castle, Iain Chalmers, Patricia Atkinson, Douglas Badenoch, Andrew D Oxman, Astrid Austvoll-Dahlgren, Lena Nordheim, L Kendall Krause, Lisa M Schwartz, Steven Woloshin and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

John C CastleJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6017-7794
Iain ChalmersJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Patricia AtkinsonJames Lind Initiative, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Douglas BadenochMinervation Ltd., Oxford, United Kingdom.
Andrew D OxmanGlobal Health Unit, Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Astrid Austvoll-DahlgrenGlobal Health Unit, Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lena NordheimHøgskulen på Vestlandet, Centre for Evidence-Based practice, Bergen, Norway.
L Kendall KrauseGlobal Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Lisa M SchwartzMedicine in the Media Program, The Dartmouth Institute, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Steven WoloshinMedicine in the Media Program, The Dartmouth Institute, Hanover, New Hampshire, United States of America.
Amanda BurlsSchool of Health Sciences, City University London, London, United Kingdom.
Paola MosconiLaboratorio di ricerca sul coinvolgimento dei cittadini in sanità, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milano, Italy.
Tammy HoffmannCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Leila CusackCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Loai AlbarqouniCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University, Queensland, Australia.
Paul GlasziouCentre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Databases, FactualHealth ResourcesLibrariesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansLearningThinking

Identifiers

PMID28738058
PMCPMC5524286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.