ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2014
Technology and Information Tool Preferences of Academics in the Field of Anaesthesiology.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveResearchers use a large number of information technology tools from the beginning until the publication of a scientific study. The aim of the study is to investigate the technology and data processing tool usage preferences of academics who produce scientific publications in the field of anaesthesiology.
methodsA multiple-choice survey, including 18 questions regarding the use of technology to assess the preferences of academicians, was performed.
resultsPubMed has been the most preferred article search portal, and the second is Google Academic. Medscape has become the most preferred medical innovation tracking website. Only 12% of academicians obtain a clinical trial registration number for their randomized clinical research. In total, 28% of respondents used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist in their clinical trials. Of all participants, 21% was using Dropbox and 9% was using Google-Drive for sharing files. Google Chrome was the most preferred internet browser (32.25%) for academic purposes. English language editing service was obtained from the Scribendi (21%) and Textcheck (12%) websites. Half of the academics were getting help from their specialist with a personal relationship, 27% was doing it themselves, and 24% was obtaining professional assistance for statistical requirements. Sixty percent of the participants were not using a reference editing program, and 21% was using EndNote. Nine percent of the academics were spending money for article writing, and the mean cost was 1287 Turkish Liras/year.
conclusionAcademics in the field of anaesthesiology significantly benefit from technology and informatics tools to produce scientific publications.
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.