ArticleJMIR research protocols2012
Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review protocol.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The relationship between postural control by instrumented assessment and adiposity in children and adolescents: a systematic review.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of powered exoskeleton use on gait in individuals with cerebral palsy: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- The impacts of unstructured nature play on health in early childhood development: A systematic review.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Comprehensive overview of computer-based health information tailoring: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Development of a Decision Aid for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Involving Intensive Care Unit Patients' and Health Professionals' Participation Using User-Centered Design and a Wiki Platform for Rapid Prototyping: A Research Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2016Article
- Implementation and Evaluation of a Wiki Involving Multiple Stakeholders Including Patients in the Promotion of Best Practices in Trauma Care: The WikiTrauma Interrupted Time Series Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2015Article
- Motivations for contributing to health-related articles on Wikipedia: an interview study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Article
- Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014Review
- Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
- Article
- Feasibility of a wiki as a participatory tool for patients in clinical guideline development.Journal of medical Internet research · 2012Article
- WikiBuild: a new application to support patient and health care professional involvement in the development of patient support tools.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid rise in the use of collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis, Google Documents, and Google Knol) has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. While researchers have conducted systematic reviews on a range of software-based information and communication technologies as well as other social media (eg, virtual communities of practice, virtual peer-to-peer communities, and electronic support groups), none have reviewed collaborative writing applications in the medical sector. The overarching goal of this project is to explore the depth and breadth of evidence for the use of collaborative writing applications in health care. Thus, the purposes of this scoping review will be to (1) map the literature on collaborative writing applications; (2) compare the applications' features; (3) describe the evidence of each application's positive and negative effects as a KT intervention in health care; (4) inventory and describe the barriers and facilitators that affect the applications' use; and (5) produce an action plan and a research agenda. A six-stage framework for scoping reviews will be used: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies within the selected databases (using the EPPI-Reviewer software to classify the studies); (3) selecting studies (an iterative process in which two reviewers search the literature, refine the search strategy, and review articles for inclusion); (4) charting the data (using EPPI-Reviewer's data-charting form); (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results (performing a descriptive, numerical, and interpretive synthesis); and (6) consulting knowledge users during three planned meetings. Since this scoping review concerns the use of collaborative writing applications as KT interventions in health care, we will use the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework to describe and compare the various studies and collaborative writing projects we find. In addition to guiding the use of collaborative writing applications in health care, this scoping review will advance the science of KT by testing tools that could be used to evaluate other social media. We also expect to identify areas that require further systematic reviews and primary research and to produce a highly relevant research agenda that explores and leverages the potential of collaborative writing software. To date, this is the first study to use the KTA framework to study the role collaborative writing applications in KT, and the first to involve three national and international institutional knowledge users as part of the research process.
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.