Claims

The included studies do not reflect which intervention is better or which favours the acquisition and retention of knowledge more effectively.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The included studies do not reflect which intervention is better, or which favours the acquisition and retention of knowledge more effectively, besides which of them is more acceptable for health professionals. → Campos Heidi Hevia 2025

Evidence

Campos Heidi Hevia 2025

Campos Heidi Hevia, da Silva Cinthia Viana Bandeira, Takahashi Juliana, de Almeida Cardoso Marilia Mastrocolla, Mazzachiodi Lily Ríos, Woo Kevin, de Gouveia Santos Vera Lucia Conceição. (2025). Educational Interventions to Improve Knowledge Among Nurses in the Prevention of Skin Tears in Hospitalised Adults and Older Adults: A Scoping Review. International Wound Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.70240

q2 · i? · review · r2

The review states that the results of this scoping review cannot yet be generalised, with few studies included. The included studies do not reflect which intervention is better, or which favours the acquisition and retention of knowledge more effectively.

"The included studies do not reflect which intervention is better, or which favours the acquisition and retention of knowledge more effectively, besides which of them is more acceptable for health professionals."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.