ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Descriptive evaluation of student-created infographics: reliability and quality in an undergraduate planetary health and sustainable healthcare online course.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Physicians require visual communication skills to convey complex health information effectively. This descriptive evaluation assessed infographic quality and inter-rater reliability as a Bloom's "create"-level assessment tool within Alexandria University's third-year Sustainable Healthcare elective, addressing a gap in visual literacy training within the medical curriculum. Methods: We analyzed 20 collaborative group infographics from the Planetary Health and Sustainable Healthcare online course. Three blinded expert raters independently applied a four-point weighted rubric (total composite score 0-4.0). Reliability was quantified using a two-way mixed-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (absolute agreement and average measures) and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (IBM SPSS v.20.0). Results: The mean composite score was 3.18 of 4.0 (SD = 0.58; 95% CI [2.95-3.41]; range: 1.50-3.77), with 15 of 20 groups (75%) achieving good-to-excellent ratings (≥3.0). Excellent inter-rater reliability was confirmed: ICC (average) = 0.909 (95% CI [0.798-0.962]). Minor rater effects ( Conclusion: Scaffolded infographic assignments produced reliable Bloom's "create"-level group products (ICC = 0.909) suitable for medical education assessment. The rubric demonstrates discriminative validity in assessing collaborative visual synthesis.
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.