ArticleBMJ open2025
E-professionalism assessment instruments in healthcare professionals: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessment instruments for e-professionalism in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
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
introductionSocial media has an impact on the reach and speed with which information is disseminated, benefiting patients and healthcare professionals by sharing knowledge, even from a distance. However, these channels can pose risks when used irresponsibly by these actors. Thus, e-professionalism emerges as a modulator of professionals' behaviours and attitudes, and its evaluation is fundamental given the demand for quality in services, including in these settings. Thus, this study aims to identify instruments used to assess the e-professionalism of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be developed to answer the question: 'How is e-professionalism in healthcare professionals evaluated in the literature?'. The searches will take place in the following databases: PUBMED/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, ERIC and Scopus using descriptors such as 'professionalism', 'e-professionalism', 'social media' and synonyms. Studies will be selected after evaluating titles and abstracts, followed by an analysis of full texts using the Rayyan tool. Studies that present the development and validation of e-professionalism assessment instruments for nursing, pharmacy, medicine and dentistry will be included. The quality of the instruments will be assessed based on evidence of content and construct validity reported by the developers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is exempt from ethical approval because it does not include patient data. The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023454825.
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.