Crowdsourcing critical appraisal of research evidence (CrowdCARE) was found to be a valid approach to assessing clinical research quality

Pianta, Michael J.; Makrai, Eve; Verspoor, Karin; Cohn, Trevor; Downie, Laura E

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.07.015

Cited by 17 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harnessing the use of crowdsourcing, a free online platform, CrowdCARE (http://crowdcare.unimelb.edu.au), has also been recently developed to provide clinicians with access to pre‐appraised research evidence . Moving forward, the availability of improved clinical guidance, to inform clinical care, would be predicted to provide a mechanism for supporting more consistent, and evidence‐based care provision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harnessing the use of crowdsourcing, a free online platform, CrowdCARE (crowdcare.unimelb.edu.au), 46 has also been recently developed to provide clinicians with access to pre-appraised research evidence. 47 Moving forward, the availability of improved clinical guidance, 48 to inform clinical care, would be predicted to provide a mechanism for supporting more consistent, and evidence-based care provision. Remaining challenges include ensuring that such guidelines are updated to be consistent with a rapidly evolving evidence base, and the dissemination and implementation of the resource(s) to clinicians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge, perspectives and clinical practices of Australian optometrists in relation to childhood myopia

Douglass

Keller

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The aim was to investigate the understanding of Australian optometrists in relation to myopia, its natural history and associations with vision‐threatening ocular disease, self‐reported clinical diagnosis and management approaches for childhood myopia, engagement with adult caregivers, and utilisation of information to guide practice. Methods An online survey was distributed to Australian optometrists (n = 4,124). Respondents provided information about their demographics (for example, gender, age, practice location and modality), myopia knowledge, self‐reported practice behaviours relating to childhood myopia, the information and evidence base used to guide their practice, and perceived extent of adult caregiver engagement in making management decisions for myopic children. Results Completed surveys were returned by 239 optometrists (six per cent completed response rate). Most respondents demonstrated knowledge of the association between high myopia and retinal breaks, retinal detachment and primary open‐angle glaucoma. Optometrists used a range of techniques to diagnose childhood myopia, with a preference for non‐cycloplegic refractive measures. The most common approaches to management were single‐vision distance and progressive addition spectacle lenses, despite most optometrists identifying orthokeratology, low‐dose (0.01%) topical atropine and soft peripheral defocus contact lenses as three potentially more effective therapeutic interventions for modifying childhood myopia progression. Almost 90 per cent of respondents considered increasing time spent outdoors to be beneficial for reducing the rate of myopia progression. The main sources of information used to guide clinical practice were continuing education conferences and events, systematic reviews, and personal experience. Respondents perceived adult caregivers to generally be involved in myopia management decisions, and considered all aspects of myopia education as important. Conclusion Current optometric practices reflect the inconclusive nature of several key aspects of the evidence for childhood myopia management. Australian optometrists appear aware of emerging evidence, but are not routinely adopting measures that have not yet received regulatory approval for modulating childhood myopia progression. Clinical guidelines may be of value for assisting practitioners in making clinical decisions based upon the current, best‐available research evidence.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, perspectives and clinical practices of Australian optometrists in relation to childhood myopia

Douglass

Keller

et al. 2020

Clinical and Experimental Optometry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This platform is unique in that it goes beyond the use of crowdsourced judgments by article type (e.g. RCTs), as in CochraneCrowd to an in-depth assessment of the methodological rigour of the articles [72].…”

Section: Health Data Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such an approach is desirable across the sciences for validation, accuracy, and in reducing bias. The critical research appraisal tool CrowdCARE, for instance, has shown that novices can be trained to appraise the rigor of published systematic reviews and, on average, achieve a high degree of accuracy relative to the experts [72].…”

Section: Challenges and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizen Science Models in Health Research: an Australian Commentary

Borda

Gray

Downie

2019

OJPHI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary explores how established citizen science models can inform and support meaningful engagement of the public in health research in Australia. In particular, with the growth in participatory health research approaches and increasing consumer participation in contributing to this research through digital technologies, there are gaps in our understanding of best practice in health and biomedical citizen science research to address these paradigm shifts. Notable gaps are how we might more clearly define the parameters of such research and which citizen science models might best support digitally-enabled participation falling within these. Further work in this area is expected to lead to how established citizen science methods may help improve the quality of and the translation of public engagement in health research.

show abstract

“…Scientists would nevertheless benefit from a basic understanding of the methodology, strengths and weaknesses of systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analyses are often performed in collaborations, and a recent feasibility study using crowd-sourcing for clinical study quality assessment suggests that this could be a way forward, since experts and novices obtained the same results (Pianta et al 2018). Combined with recently developed and highly promising machine learning algorithms (Bannach-Brown et al 2019), collaborative efforts could increase the pace and reduce human error in systematic reviews and meta-analysis.…”

Section: Working Together To Improve Nonclinical Data Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine to Optimize Nonclinical Research Practices

Lefevre

Balice-Gordon

2019

Good Research Practice in Non-Clinical Pharmacology and Biomedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crowdsourcing critical appraisal of research evidence (CrowdCARE) was found to be a valid approach to assessing clinical research quality

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Knowledge, perspectives and clinical practices of Australian optometrists in relation to childhood myopia

Knowledge, perspectives and clinical practices of Australian optometrists in relation to childhood myopia

Citizen Science Models in Health Research: an Australian Commentary

Learning from Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine to Optimize Nonclinical Research Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About