Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36104815›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

How do people use and view infographics that summarise health and medical research? A cross-sectional survey.

Joshua R Zadro, Giovanni E Ferreira, Mary O'Keeffe, Will Stahl-Timmins, Mark R Elkins, Christopher G Maher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Enhancing orthopaedic scientific communication: the launch of infographics in the KSSTA journal.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    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

6 authors.

Joshua R ZadroInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, PO Box M179, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. joshua.zadro@sydney.edu.au.
Giovanni E FerreiraInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, PO Box M179, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Mary O'KeeffeInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, PO Box M179, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.
Will Stahl-TimminsData Graphics Designer, The BMJ, London, UK.
Mark R ElkinsFaculty of Medicine & Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Christopher G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, PO Box M179, Level 10 North, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Missenden Road, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding how people use infographics and their opinion on them has important implications for the design of infographics but has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to describe people's use of and opinions about infographics summarising health and medical research, preferences for information to include in infographics, and barriers to reading full-text articles.

methodsWe conducted an online cross-sectional survey of consumers of infographics that summarise health or medical research. Demographic and outcome data were collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. A sensitivity analysis explored whether being a researcher/academic influenced the findings.

resultsTwo hundred fifty-four participants completed the survey (88% completion rate). Participants included health professionals (66%), researchers (34%), academics (24%), and patients/the public (13%). Most used Twitter (67%) and smartphones (89%) to access and view infographics, and thought infographics were useful tools to communicate research (92%) and increase the attention research receives (95%). Although most participants were somewhat/extremely likely (76%) to read the full-text article after viewing an infographic, some used infographics as a substitute for the full text at least half of the time (41%), thought infographics should be detailed enough so they do not have to read the full text (55%), and viewed infographics as tools to reduce the time burden of reading the full text (64%). Researchers/academics were less likely to report behaviours/beliefs suggesting infographics can reduce the need to read the full-text article.

conclusionsGiven many people use infographics as a substitute for reading the full-text article and want infographics to be detailed enough so they don't have to read the full text, a checklist to facilitate clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed infographics summarising some types of health and medical research may be useful.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData VisualizationCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansResearch PersonnelCross-sectionalGraphical abstractHealthInfographicsMedicineSurveyVisual abstract

Identifiers

PMID36104815
PMCPMC9472431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.