ReviewJournal of education and health promotion2022
Identification of the factors related to the clinical knowledge sharing: A protocol for systematic review.
Review in Journal of education and health promotion, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response to "Clinical knowledge sharing self-efficacy among healthcare professionals".Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors of Clinical Knowledge Sharing among Medical Specialists in University Hospitals.International journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
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
Today, the ability of the organizations to successfully knowledge management and sharing can help them in better performance. Effective knowledge sharing (KS) in the clinical context provides better clinical decisions and improves the quality of care services. This systematic review will be conducted to identify the factors related to the clinical KS (CKS). This systematic literature review will be conducted to search the published documents about the affecting factors on the (clinical) KS. To this end, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Cochrane, Embase, SID, Magiran, IranDoc, and ISC will be thoroughly assessed with considered keywords and search strategy. No time limit will be considered and all relevant documents published will be evaluated until the start date of the search. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review study has been conducted on the factors related to CKS and our research will try to comprehensively extract the effective factors in this topic. Identifying the factors affecting CKS will lead to transparency in the exchange and interpretation of clinical knowledge in clinical care delivery and making the best clinical decisions as well as improving the quality of clinical care. It will also provide a condition to facilitate the delivery of more effective clinical education for policymakers in the field of clinical education.
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.