ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2022
Assessing on-line medical education resources: A primer for acute care medical professionals and others.
Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAM) in emergency medicine: use and perceived clinical relevance from a large cross-sectional survey.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the role of traditional and nontraditional educational resources in point-of-care ultrasound training: A cross-sectional survey of educator preferences and practices.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Article
- SAEM systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Gastrointestinal illnesses.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- An overview of the outreach of the 2019-2021 Endo-ERN knowledge generation webinars.Endocrine connections · 2023Review
- Health Literacy Analytics of Accessible Patient Resources in Cardiovascular Medicine: What are Patients Wanting to Know?Kansas journal of medicine · 2023Article
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
The internet is increasingly used to propagate medical education, debate, and even disinformation. Therefore, this primer aims to help acute care medical professionals, as well as the public. This is because we all need to be able to critically appraise digital products, appraise content producers, and reflect upon our own on-line presence. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with online medical resources. We then review Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) and the key tools used to assess the trustworthiness of on-line medical products. Specifically, after discussing the pros and cons of traditional academic quality metrics, we compare and contrast the Social Media Index, the ALiEM AIR score, the Revised METRIQ Score, and gestalt. We also discuss internet search engines, peer review, and the important message behind the seemingly tongue-in-cheek Kardashian Index. Hopefully, this primer bolsters basic digital literacy and helps trainees, practitioners, and the public locate useful and reliable on-line resources. Importantly, we highlight the continued importance of traditional academic medicine and primary source publications.
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.