Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35224409›Full record

ArticleAEM education and training2022

Going viral: A scoping review of the current state and impact of online research dissemination in emergency medicine.

James M Gray, David Schnadower, Ryan LaFollette, Ashish S Shah, Brad Sobolewski

Open access · greenAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in AEM education and training, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dissemination planning in exercise oncology trials-a systematic review of trial protocols.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James M GrayDivision of Emergency Medicine Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3657-1107
David SchnadowerDivision of Emergency Medicine Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-7012
Ryan LaFolletteDepartment of Emergency Medicine University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Ashish S ShahDivision of Emergency Medicine Rady Children's Hospital San Diego California USA.
Brad SobolewskiDivision of Emergency Medicine Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati Ohio USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of free open-access medical education (FOAM) and other online knowledge dissemination methods has increased over the past decade. However, the role and impact of these tools in the knowledge translation continuum are poorly understood, potentially limiting the ability of knowledge generators to fully harness and exploit their potential. Here, we aim to comprehensively map and synthesize the literature describing the use of online tools for the dissemination of emergency medicine research.

methodsUsing scoping review methodology, we searched the traditional literature via PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, SCOPUS, and the gray literature for publications exploring online methods to disseminate new research findings. We synthesized the results and constructed a conceptual model of current research dissemination methods.

resultsWe included 79 out of 655 unique abstracts and articles identified in our search, 62 of which were from the traditional literature. We describe six primary domains: integration with traditional literature, measurement of dissemination, online organizations and communities of practice, professional development, quality assurance tools and techniques, and advantages and disadvantages of FOAM. For each domain we present an exemplar article and prevailing gaps in knowledge. Finally, we propose a current conceptual framework for dissemination of new research findings that describes both traditional and novel methods of dissemination.

conclusionsThis comprehensive review of the literature and current dissemination framework will empower researchers, research networks, and granting organizations to maximize their use of FOAM and other online methods to disseminate new knowledge as well as provide clinicians a better understanding of the tools and methods by which to access and implement new research findings.

Identifiers

PMID35224409
PMCPMC8855629
OpenAlexW4207050821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.