Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40630309›Full record

ArticleKidney international reports2025

Nephrology Health Professionals' Perspectives on Their Preferred Modality for Scientific Meetings, Balancing Affordability, Sustainability and Opportunities to Interact With Peers: An International Society of Nephrology Survey.

Patrizia Natale, Massimo Torreggiani, Suetonia Palmer, Martin Howell, Allison Jaure, Dominique Tudor, Silvia Salaro, Elisa Longhitano, Cristina Adriana Popa, Giovanni Strippoli and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney international reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Patrizia NataleSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Massimo TorreggianiNéphrologie et dialyse, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France.
Suetonia PalmerUniversity of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Martin HowellSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Allison JaureSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Dominique TudorInternational Society of Nephrology.
Silvia SalaroInternational Society of Nephrology.
Elisa LonghitanoUnit of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Cristina Adriana PopaDepartment of Internal Medicine-Nephrology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Grigore T Popa," Iasi, Romania.
Giovanni StrippoliSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Rosanna CoppoFondazione Ricerca Molinette, Regina Margherita Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Giorgina B PiccoliNéphrologie et dialyse, Centre Hospitalier Le Mans, Le Mans, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The COVID-19 lockdowns and awareness of the ecological impact of our profession led us to reconsider the way we deliver scientific meetings. In this International Society of Nephrology (ISN) survey, we aimed to investigate health professionals' preferences for in-person, virtual or hybrid nephrology meetings. Methods: An Results: A total of 499 participants from 102 countries completed the survey. Most of them agreed that a combination of in-person, remote, and hybrid meetings works best, whereas 14.1% preferred virtual meetings only, and 25.2% preferred in-person meetings only. Hybrid meetings were identified as the best option for the future, regardless of the number of attendees. Flexibility in schedules was their most important advantage, even if this modality limits networking. In-person meetings allow for discussions with international peers, although costs may be a barrier. The wiser use of resources and better management of large numbers of attendees were the main advantages of hybrid meetings (about 30% each); however, this modality potentially discriminates on the basis of financial resources and geographical area (31%). Conclusion: Hybrid meetings, allowing for more flexibility and better utilization of resources, were the preferred modality for scientific meetings, regardless of the number of participants. A targeted survey could further explore how to optimize meeting attendance and participation in scientific discussions.

Indexed as

carbon footprinthealth professionalshybrid meetingin-person meetingscientific exchangesvirtual meeting

Identifiers

PMID40630309
PMCPMC12231034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.