Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23347357›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2013

WhatisKT wiki: a case study of a platform for knowledge translation terms and definitions--descriptive analysis.

Kathleen Ann McKibbon, Cynthia Lokker, Arun Keepanasseril, Heather Colquhoun, Robert Brian Haynes, Nancy L Wilczynski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Appropriateness of tumor marker request: a case of study.Annals of translational medicine · 2017
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. OMICtools: an informative directory for multi-omic data analysis.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2014
    Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kathleen Ann McKibbonHealth Information Research Unit, Dept of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, CRL Building, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada. mckib@mcmaster.ca
Cynthia Lokker
Arun Keepanasseril
Heather Colquhoun
Robert Brian Haynes
Nancy L Wilczynski

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research FRN-86258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than a hundred terms, often with unclear definitions and varying emphases, are used by health research and practice communities across the world who are interested in getting the best possible evidence applied (e.g., knowledge translation, implementation science, diffusion of innovations, and technology transfer). This makes finding published evidence difficult and can result in reduced, misinterpreted, or challenging interactions among professionals. Open dialogue and interaction among various professionals is needed to achieve consolidation of vocabulary. We use case report methods to describe how we sought to build an online tool to present the range of terms and facilitate the dialogue process across groups and disciplines interested in harnessing research evidence for healthcare.

methodsWe used a wiki platform from Wikispaces to present the problem of terminology and make a case and opportunity for collaboration on usage. Wikis are web sites where communities of users can collaborate online to build content and discuss progress. We gathered terms related to getting research into practice, sought published definitions, and posted these on the wiki (WhatisKT http://whatiskt.wikispaces.com/). We built the wiki in mid-2008 and promoted it through various groups and publications. This report describes the content of the site, our promotion efforts, use of the site, and how the site was used for collaboration up to the end of 2011.

resultsThe WhatisKT wiki site now includes more than 120 pages. Traffic to the site has increased substantially from an average of 200 monthly visits in 2008 to 1700 in 2011. Visitors from 143 countries viewed the wiki in 2011, compared with 12 countries in 2008. However, most use has been limited to short term accesses of about 40 seconds per visit, and discussion of consolidation and solidifying terminology is conspicuously absent.

conclusionsAlthough considerable interest exists in the terms and definitions related to getting research into practice based on increasing numbers of accesses, use of the WhatisKT wiki site for anything beyond quick lookups was minimal. Additional efforts must be directed towards increasing the level of interaction among the members of the site to encourage collaboration on term use.

Indexed as

Diffusion of InnovationHealth Services ResearchTerminology as TopicHumansInternetInterprofessional RelationsTime FactorsTranslational Research, BiomedicalVocabulary, Controlled

Identifiers

PMID23347357
PMCPMC3564745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.