SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2017
Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nudge strategies to improve healthcare providers' implementation of evidence-based guidelines, policies and practices: a systematic review of trials included within Cochrane systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2020Pooled it
- Developing a new clinical governance framework for chronic diseases in primary care: an umbrella review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Developing a toolkit for building a community hospital clinical research program.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Article
- Peer creation and sharing of mnemonics in collaborative documents for pathology education: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Developing Strategies for Integrating Indigenous Health and Modern Health Systems for Improved Adolescent Sexual Health Outcomes in Umguza and Mberengwa Districts in Zimbabwe.Health services insights · 2021Article
- Improving a Web-Based Tool to Support Older Adults to Stay Independent at Home: Qualitative Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- The Learning Exchange, a Community Knowledge Commons for Learning Networks: Qualitative Evaluation to Test Acceptability, Feasibility, and Utility.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- Clinical indicators for common paediatric conditions: Processes, provenance and products of the CareTrack Kids study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Comparison of the Impact of Wikipedia, UpToDate, and a Digital Textbook on Short-Term Knowledge Acquisition Among Medical Students: Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Web-Based Resources.JMIR medical education · 2017Article
- Impact of Implementing a Wiki to Develop Structured Electronic Order Sets on Physicians' Intention to Use Wiki-Based Order Sets.JMIR medical informatics · 2016Article
- Lessons Learned From an Intensive Writing Training Course for Applied Epidemiologists.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollaborative writing applications (CWAs), such as wikis and Google Documents, hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and healthcare. Although a growing body of literature indicates that CWAs could have positive effects on healthcare, such as improved collaboration, behavioural change, learning, knowledge management, and adaptation of knowledge to local context, this has never been assessed systematically. Moreover, several questions regarding safety, reliability, and legal aspects exist.
objectivesThe objectives of this review were to (1) assess the effects of the use of CWAs on process (including the behaviour of healthcare professionals) and patient outcomes, (2) critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the use of resources, costs, and cost-effectiveness associated with CWAs to improve professional practices and patient outcomes, and (3) explore the effects of different CWA features (e.g. open versus closed) and different implementation factors (e.g. the presence of a moderator) on process and patient outcomes. SEARCH
methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and 11 other electronic databases. We searched the grey literature, two trial registries, CWA websites, individual journals, and conference proceedings. We also contacted authors and experts in the field. We did not apply date or language limits. We searched for published literature to August 2016, and grey literature to September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and repeated measures studies (RMS), in which CWAs were used as an intervention to improve the process of care, patient outcomes, or healthcare costs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Teams of two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies. Disagreements were resolved by discussion, and when consensus was not reached, a third review author was consulted. MAIN
resultsWe screened 11,993 studies identified from the electronic database searches and 346 studies from grey literature sources. We analysed the full text of 99 studies. None of the studies met the eligibility criteria; two potentially relevant studies are ongoing. AUTHORS'
conclusionsWhile there is a high number of published studies about CWAs, indicating that this is an active field of research, additional studies using rigorous experimental designs are needed to assess their impact and cost-effectiveness on process and patient outcomes.
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.