Search Results (1 to 10 of 2854 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
Skip search results from other journals and go to results- 752 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 522 JMIR Research Protocols
- 288 JMIR Formative Research
- 239 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 151 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 140 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 112 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 92 JMIR Mental Health
- 82 JMIR Human Factors
- 69 JMIR Dermatology
- 44 JMIR Medical Education
- 41 JMIR Cancer
- 40 JMIR Aging
- 37 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 33 JMIR Serious Games
- 29 JMIR Diabetes
- 26 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 25 Iproceedings
- 24 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 23 JMIR Cardio
- 22 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 12 JMIR AI
- 11 JMIR Infodemiology
- 11 JMIRx Med
- 8 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 6 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 4 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 3 JMIR Nursing
- 2 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 2 JMIR Data
- 2 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
- 1 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 1 Medicine 2.0
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
An active intern exchanged on average 39.8 messages (range: 26.8‐50.6) with nurses per day, while an active nurse exchanged on average 15.3 messages (range: 2.3‐37.2) with interns per day (P
Message transactions between 96 nurses and 25 interns over a 5-month period, showing the total number of messages exchanged with nurses, with interns, and specifically between nurses and interns.
(A) Hourly distribution of total message volumes exchanged between nurses and interns by hour of the day.
JMIR Med Inform 2025;13:e66859
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Consumer-Grade Neurofeedback With Mindfulness Meditation: Meta-Analysis
We conducted 2 different approaches, trim-and-fill, which corrects for publication bias in small samples, and 3-parameter selection models which explicitly model the proportion of studies below a p-threshold. We considered applying p-curve approaches, but they require at least 3 significant findings which was not the case for multiple models.
A PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Figure 2 (PRISMA checklist provided in Multimedia Appendix 2).
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e68204
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Leveraging Datathons to Teach AI in Undergraduate Medical Education: Case Study
As expected, participant familiarity with Git Hub/Gitlab and Microsoft Excel did not significantly change before and after the datathon (Git Hub/Gitlab: P=.92; Microsoft Excel: P=1.00; pairwise Fisher exact test).
JMIR Med Educ 2025;11:e63602
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Background characteristics of nursing home residents in both the experimental and control groups who completed the semistructured interviews after the 4-week intervention.
a Significance level set at P
b Chi-square test with Yates continuity correction.
c Not applicable.
d GDS: Global Deterioration Scale.
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e56586
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Go back to the top of the page Skip and go to footer section
Across all medications, the probability of di LQTS was 16.7% (SD 0.6) if the BPA alert fired versus 8.5% (SD 0.1) if the alert did not fire (OR 2.28, 95% CI 2.10-2.47; P
Within the BPA, there was no evidence of an effect of provider actions on the risk of di LQTS overall (P=.79; Table S9 A in Multimedia Appendix 1), or for any specific medication (Table S9 A in Multimedia Appendix 1), as well as no difference in inpatient (P=.18; Table S9 B in Multimedia Appendix 1), 3-month (P=.25; Table S9 C in Multimedia Appendix
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e68256
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The overall SURE test, saying “yes” to all 4 components, was 61.2% (156/255) for the standard group, 66.5% (145/218) for the visual group, and 67% (134/200) for the visual+VC group (visual vs standard, odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% CI 0.86‐1.84; P=.23; visual+VC vs standard, OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87‐1.90; P=.20).
JMIR Cardio 2025;9:e67956
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS