ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021
One Coin, Two Sides: Eliciting Expert Knowledge From Training Participants in a Capacity-Building Program for Veterinary Professionals.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing passive surveillance for African swine fever detection on U.S. swine farms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Assessment of the Risk of Foot and Mouth Disease among Beef Cattle at Slaughter from East African Production Systems.Viruses · 2021Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific research may include the elicitation of judgment from non-academic subject-matter experts in order to improve the quality and/or impact of research studies. Elicitation of expert knowledge or judgment is used when data are missing, incomplete, or not representative for the specific setting and processes being studied. Rigorous methods are crucial to ensure robust study results, and yet the quality of the elicitation can be affected by a number of practical constraints, including the understanding that subject-matter experts have of the elicitation process itself. In this paper, we present a case of expert elicitation embedded within an extended training course for veterinary professionals as an example of overcoming these constraints. The coupling of the two activities enabled extended opportunities for training and a relationship of mutual respect to be the foundation for the elicitation process. In addition, the participatory research activities reinforced knowledge synthesis objectives of the educational program. Finally, the synergy between the two concurrent objectives may produce benefits which transcend either independent activity: solutions and ideas built by local professionals, evolving collaborative research and training approaches, and a network of diverse academic and practicing professionals. This approach has the versatility to be adapted to many training and research opportunities.
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.