ArticleAnnals of dermatology2014
The suitability of gray-scale electronic readers for dermatology journals.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid development of information and communication technology has replaced traditional books by electronic versions. Most print dermatology journals have been replaced with electronic journals (e-journals), which are readily used by clinicians and medical students.
objectiveThe objectives of this study were to determine whether e-readers are appropriate for reading dermatology journals, to conduct an attitude study of both medical personnel and students, and to find a way of improving e-book use in the field of dermatology.
methodsAll articles in the Korean Journal of Dermatology published from January 2010 to December 2010 were utilized in this study. Dermatology house officers, student trainees in their fourth year of medical school, and interns at Korea University Medical Center participated in the study. After reading the articles with Kindle 2, their impressions and evaluations were recorded using a questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsThe results demonstrated that gray-scale e-readers might not be suitable for reading dermatology journals, especially for case reports compared to the original articles. Only three of the thirty-one respondents preferred e-readers to printed papers. The most common suggestions from respondents to encourage usage of e-books in the field of dermatology were the introduction of a color display, followed by the use of a touch screen system, a cheaper price, and ready-to-print capabilities.
conclusionIn conclusion, our study demonstrated that current e-readers might not be suitable for reading dermatology journals. However, they may be utilized in selected situations according to the type and topic of the papers.
Indexed as
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.