ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1933

Crowdsourcing Using The Audience Response System To Solve Medical Problems: A Pilot Study

Antoine G. Sreih1 and Fadi Aldaghlawi2, 1Medicine/Division of Rheumatology, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2Weiss Memorial Hospital, chicago, IL

Meeting: 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Clinical research and quality of care

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Title: Health Services Research, Quality Measures and Quality of Care - Innovations in Health Care Delivery

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose:

When faced with unclear diagnostic or therapeutic uncertainties, patients often seek further clinical opinions. Similarly, when in doubt, physicians seek expert opinions to assist with clinical care and minimize errors. The audience response system (ARS) has been traditionally used to test knowledge and improve the educational experience. However, ARS can be used to solicit crowd opinion (crowdsourcing) for specific medical questions. In this proof-of-concept pilot study, we sought to examine the ability of professional crowds to correctly answer difficult medical questions using the ARS.

Methods:

This study analyzed data on answers to questions based on clinical vignettes administered during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 ACR/ARHP scientific meetings for which the ARS was used. Questions were considered evidence-based or expert-based. All questions were multiple-choice format. The crowd chose the answers independently and anonymously using remote control panels. Questions were considered answered correctly if the majority of the crowd chose the correct answer. To minimize the influence of the speaker on the crowd, only questions administered prior to any medical discussion were used for this study. As a validation group and to determine if physicians other than rheumatologists were able to answer correctly, 10 randomly chosen ACR/ARHP questions were administered using the ARS during medical Grand Rounds at 2 academic institutions. The percentage of correct answers was calculated. Chi- square test was used to analyze the data.

Results:

93 ARS questions were administered during three consecutive ACR/ARHP scientific meetings. 21 questions were excluded because they either had unknown answers (12 questions) or were administered following medical discussions (9 questions). A total of 72 questions were included in the study, of which 59 had evidence-based and 13 had expert-based answers. The number of multiple-choice answers for each question ranged from 2 to 8 choices, with 97% having at least 4 choices. Vasculitis was the most common topic covered (19%) followed by rheumatoid arthritis (16%). 41 of 59 evidence-based questions (70%) were answered correctly (p<0.0001), and 8 of 13 expert-based questions (62%) were answered similarly to what an expert would answer (p<0.0001). The mean percentage of people answering correctly was 59 ± 18 %. The mean difference in percentage between the correct answer and the next best answer was 37 ± 26 %. 23 of 72 (32%) questions were answered incorrectly. Of those, the correct answer was the second best answer in the majority of questions (66%). For the validation groups, 7/10 (70%) and 9/10 (90%) questions from each institution were answered correctly, mirroring the results seen at the ACR/ARHP meetings.

Conclusion:

Regardless of their specialty, professional crowds as a whole are able to answer difficult clinical questions and solve clinical vignettes using the ARS. Their answers frequently match evidence and expert answers. In the age of crowdsourcing and wide Internet use, professional crowds may serve as a source for solving difficult clinical questions.


Disclosure:

A. G. Sreih,
None;

F. Aldaghlawi,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/crowdsourcing-using-the-audience-response-system-to-solve-medical-problems-a-pilot-study/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology