ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Internet-Based Supportive Interventions for Family Caregivers of People With Dementia: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR aging · 2024Trial
- Mobile Health Interventions to Support Patients With Dementia During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2026Review
- Usability of iSupport Swiss, a World Health Organization Digital Intervention for Caregivers of People With Dementia: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of Web-Based Interventions for Family Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia: A Scoping Review.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Review
- Article
- Adaptation, testing, and use of the "iSupport for Dementia" program in different countries: a systematic review.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2024Article
- Efficacy ofDementia & neuropsychologia · 2023Article
- iSupport for Young Carers: An Adaptation of an e-Health Intervention for Young Dementia Carers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess usability and acceptability of Materials and methods: In the first stage, nine caregivers/former caregivers assessed the interface of the platform that hosts Results: The results of the first stage indicated a user-friendly interface of the system and relevant content of the program, with 55.6 and 77.8% of the participants assigning the maximum grade to these questions, respectively. Of the five possible points, the system's mean score was 3.7. In Stage 2, 80% of the caregivers rated the program as very useful and 100% would recommend it to other caregivers. Perception of the program's usability by the SUS scale was excellent ( Conclusion: This research allowed elaborating the final version of
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.