Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0140029 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0140029 C4605679!4605679 !26466099     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 245.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26466099 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       PLoS+One 2015 ; 10 (10 ): e0140029 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26466099 |t=2015. Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals |pdf=|usr=}}{{26466099 }} gab.com Text Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26466099 #FOAvip OBJECTIVES: To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Annual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members' rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members' impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences. RESULTS: Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p<0.001). There was no difference between formats for comprehensibility (mean 7.6 critical appraisal vs. 7.1 infographic; p = 0.09). Respondents indicated the infographic would be most useful for patients and their caregivers, while the critical appraisal would be most useful for their professional roles. CONCLUSIONS: Infographics are considered more aesthetically appealing for summarizing evidence; however, critical appraisal formats are considered clearer and more comprehensible. Our findings show differences in terms of audience-specific preferences for presentation of research results. This study supports other research indicating that tools for knowledge dissemination and translation need to be targeted to specific end users' preferences and needs. Twit Text FOAVip Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26466099 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26466099 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26466099 }}</ref> Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals #MMPMID26466099 Crick K ; Hartling L PLoS One 2015[]; 10 (10 ): e0140029 PMID26466099 show ga OBJECTIVES: To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Annual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children. PARTICIPANTS: Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members' rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members' impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences. RESULTS: Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p<0.001). There was no difference between formats for comprehensibility (mean 7.6 critical appraisal vs. 7.1 infographic; p = 0.09). Respondents indicated the infographic would be most useful for patients and their caregivers, while the critical appraisal would be most useful for their professional roles. CONCLUSIONS: Infographics are considered more aesthetically appealing for summarizing evidence; however, critical appraisal formats are considered clearer and more comprehensible. Our findings show differences in terms of audience-specific preferences for presentation of research results. This study supports other research indicating that tools for knowledge dissemination and translation need to be targeted to specific end users' preferences and needs. |*Models, Theoretical [MESH] |Cross-Sectional Studies [MESH] |Female [MESH] |Humans [MESH]Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing