ArticleClinical kidney journal2020
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging social media for resident training in developing countries: A case study of Libya.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Embracing the (r)evolution of social media and digital scholarship in pediatric nephrology education.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Review
- Utility of semi-private messaging application (WhatsApp®) for Onconephrology education: a qualitative analysis of a 'mastermind' chat.Clinical kidney journal · 2022Article
- WhatsApp-Based Focus Groups Among Mexican-Origin Women in Zika Risk Area: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Data Quality.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Impact of online communication and type of media formats in enhancing orthodontic patients' knowledge.Journal of orthodontic science · 2021Article
- Design, Dissemination, and Assessment of NephSIM: A Mobile-Optimized Nephrology Teaching Tool.Journal of graduate medical education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTeaching methods in most residency and fellowship programs have not yet addressed the challenges of rapid dissemination of new scientific information. Our Northwell nephrology fellowship program used the smartphone application WhatsApp
methodsA WhatsApp
resultsFaculty feedback was generally positive. Three major themes arose: control over learning material, comfort being fostered between faculty and fellows and faculty perceptions of fellows. The fellows also reported an overall positive experience. Control and comfort were themes again identified in this focus group. Fellows reported feeling control over which faculty member was in the group and when to respond to questions. Fellows also felt comfort from learning without pressure. Variety was the third theme that arose.
conclusionFocus group evaluations elucidated the strengths of using WhatsApp
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.