Systematic online academic resources (SOAR) review: Sickle cell disorders

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.

Systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Pediatric respiratory infectious disease

“…This is particularly important given the burgeoning number of pediatric nurse practitioner FOAM content creators and aggregators. 44,45 As noted in the prior SOAR reviews, [19][20][21] resources as a whole were found to have scored the lowest in the two questions related to the "review" domain of the rMETRIQ tool, Q6 (editorial process and peer review) and Q7 (postpublication commentary). Much has been written on the differences of FOAM resources in their editorial and peer review process.…”

“…19 The previous reviews covered the topics of renal and genitourinary 19 ; endocrine, metabolic, and nutritional disorders 20 ; and sickle cell disorders in adults. 21 These reviews utilized the revised METRIQ (rMETRIQ) score, a rating tool created from a rigorous derivation process, to assess the quality of blog posts. 15,22 In these reviews, authors found that a minority of resources assessed were of high quality (10%-16%).…”

“…15,22 As determined by the modified Angoff method 36 in a prior SOAR review study, 19 a quality cutoff of ≥16 was established to be high quality. In the most recent SOAR review, 21 authors considered a score of ≤7 to indicate poor quality. To ensure reliable and consistent scoring with the rMETRIQ tool, reviewers underwent tool rater training.…”

“…Three prior systematic online academic resource (SOAR) reviews, a new type of synthesis scholarship adapted from the systematic review format, have sought to “comprehensively identify, collate, and curate online content for topic‐specific modules.” 19 The previous reviews covered the topics of renal and genitourinary 19 ; endocrine, metabolic, and nutritional disorders 20 ; and sickle cell disorders in adults 21 . These reviews utilized the revised METRIQ (rMETRIQ) score, a rating tool created from a rigorous derivation process, to assess the quality of blog posts 15,22 .…”

SAEM systematic online academic resource (SOAR) review: Gastrointestinal illnesses

“…16 Thus far, reviews have been performed for renal, endocrine, and sickle cell diseases for the SOAR bank of reviews. [13][14][15] This review focuses on acute gastrointestinal (GI) conditions relevant to EM.…”