ReviewCureus2017
Crowdsourced Curriculum Development for Online Medical Education.
Review in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Enablers to the Production of Open Access Medical Education Platforms: Scoping Review.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Exploring the Scope of Crowdsourcing in Medical Education.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Developing a capacity building training model for public health managers of low and middle income countries.PloS one · 2023Article
- Medical Education 4.0: A Neurology Perspective.Cureus · 2022Review
- Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of an Open Access, Level-Specific, Core Content Curriculum for Emergency Medicine Residents.Journal of graduate medical education · 2021Article
- Crowdsourcing to develop open-access learning resources on antimicrobial resistance.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- A Short History of Free Open Access Medical Education. The Past, Present, and Future.ATS scholar · 2020Article
- Curriculum Design and Implementation of the Emergency Medicine Chief Resident Incubator.Cureus · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years online educational content, efforts at quality appraisal, and integration of online material into institutional teaching initiatives have increased. However, medical education has yet to develop large-scale online learning centers. Crowd-sourced curriculum development may expedite the realization of this potential while providing opportunities for innovation and scholarship. This article describes the current landscape, best practices, and future directions for crowdsourced curriculum development using Kern's framework for curriculum development and the example topic of core content in emergency medicine. A scoping review of online educational content was performed by a panel of subject area experts for each step in Kern's framework. Best practices and recommendations for future development for each step were established by the same panel using a modified nominal group consensus process. The most prevalent curriculum design steps were (1) educational content and (2) needs assessments. Identified areas of potential innovation within these steps included targeting gaps in specific content areas and developing underrepresented instructional methods. Steps in curriculum development without significant representation included (1) articulation of goals and objectives and (2) tools for curricular evaluation. By leveraging the power of the community, crowd-sourced curriculum development offers a mechanism to diffuse the burden associated with creating comprehensive online learning centers. There is fertile ground for innovation and scholarship in each step along the continuum of curriculum development. Realization of this paradigm's full potential will require individual developers to strongly consider how their contributions will align with the work of others.
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.