ArticlePloS one2018
Eliciting improved quantitative judgements using the IDEA protocol: A case study in natural resource management.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structured expert elicitation for long-term survival outcomes in health technology assessment: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Emerging human dimensions research in coastal and nearshore Oceania.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Pooled it
- g versus c: comparing individual and collective intelligence across two meta-analyses.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Pooled it
- Structured Expert Elicitation of Long-Term Survival in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Case Study Applying Guidance from NICE Technical Support Document 26.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- An intuitive sampling framework for setting-specific decision-making in soil-transmitted helminthiasis control programs.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Evaluating models of expert judgment to inform assessment of ecosystem viability and collapse.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Predicting and reasoning about replicability using structured groups.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Are Experts Well-Calibrated? An Equivalence-Based Hypothesis Test.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Reimagining peer review as an expert elicitation process.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling.Epidemics · 2022Article
- Factors affecting expert performance in bid evaluation: An integrated approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Potassium chloride-based replacers: modeling effects on sodium and potassium intakes of the US population with cross-sectional data from NHANES 2015-2016 and 2009-2010.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Article
- Using Decision Science for Monitoring Threatened Western Snowy Plovers to Inform Recovery.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Article
- Using a structured decision analysis to evaluate bald eagle vital signs monitoring in Southwest Alaska National Parks.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
- Bioengineering horizon scan 2020.eLife · 2020Article
- Individuals vs. BARD: Experimental Evaluation of an Online System for Structured, Collaborative Bayesian Reasoning.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNatural resource management uses expert judgement to estimate facts that inform important decisions. Unfortunately, expert judgement is often derived by informal and largely untested protocols, despite evidence that the quality of judgements can be improved with structured approaches. We attribute the lack of uptake of structured protocols to the dearth of illustrative examples that demonstrate how they can be applied within pressing time and resource constraints, while also improving judgements. AIMS AND
methodsIn this paper, we demonstrate how the IDEA protocol for structured expert elicitation may be deployed to overcome operational challenges while improving the quality of judgements. The protocol was applied to the estimation of 14 future abiotic and biotic events on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Seventy-six participants with varying levels of expertise related to the Great Barrier Reef were recruited and allocated randomly to eight groups. Each participant provided their judgements using the four-step question format of the IDEA protocol ('Investigate', 'Discuss', 'Estimate', 'Aggregate') through remote elicitation. When the events were realised, the participant judgements were scored in terms of accuracy, calibration and informativeness. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThe results demonstrate that the IDEA protocol provides a practical, cost-effective, and repeatable approach to the elicitation of quantitative estimates and uncertainty via remote elicitation. We emphasise that i) the aggregation of diverse individual judgements into pooled group judgments almost always outperformed individuals, and ii) use of a modified Delphi approach helped to remove linguistic ambiguity, and further improved individual and group judgements. Importantly, the protocol encourages review, critical appraisal and replication, each of which is required if judgements are to be used in place of data in a scientific context. The results add to the growing body of literature that demonstrates the merit of using structured elicitation protocols. We urge decision-makers and analysts to use insights and examples to improve the evidence base of expert judgement in natural resource management.
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.