ArticleAEM education and training2022
Systematic online academic resources (SOAR) review: Sickle cell disorders.
Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- FOAM authorship: Who's teaching our learners?AEM education and training · 2024Article
- SAEM systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Gastrointestinal illnesses.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Pediatric respiratory infectious disease.AEM education and training · 2024Article
- Systematic online academic resources (SOAR) review: Sickle cell disorders.AEM education and training · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Free open-access medical education (FOAM) resources have become highly utilized resources in emergency medicine education. However, FOAM content often lacks the traditional peer review process, leaving quality assessment to the readers. In this systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review, we apply a systematic methodology to assess the quality of FOAM resources on sickle cell disease (SCD). Methods: We searched keywords for SCD using FOAM Search and the top 50 FOAM websites listed on the Social Media Index. Resources found were screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a total of 53 resources underwent full-text quality assessment using the revised Medical Education Translational Resources Impact and Quality (rMETRIQ) tool. Results: The search yielded 520 resources, of which 53 met the criteria for quality assessment. A total of eight posts (15.1% of posts) were identified as high quality (rMETRIQ ≥ 16). The most commonly addressed topics within SCD topics included acute chest syndrome, acute pain crisis and general review of SCD. A total of 11 posts (21% of posts) were found to have an rMETRIQ score of less than 7, which may indicate poor quality. The most commonly identified type of resource was personalized reading (64%) and a number of posts were deemed to not have an appropriate use due to poor quality (15%). Conclusions: We were able to systematically search a wide range of resources to identify, appraise, and organize FOAM resources on the topic of SCD. A final list of eight high-quality resources can guide trainees, educator recommendations, and FOAM authors.
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.