Purpose
– This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the influencing factors on knowledge transfer through meta-analysis with an emphasis on the influence of cultural contexts.
Design/methodology/approach
– The approach involved the evaluation and analysis of 69 published empirical studies and the categorization of these studies into two groups based on different cultural contexts as described by Hofstede. A meta-analytic approach was then employed to provide a comparative analysis of the categorized studies.
Findings
– The results of the meta-analysis of the influencing factors of knowledge transfer are consistent with the results obtained in most previous studies, indicating a maturation of research in this area. Influencing factors such as knowledge ambiguity, tie strength, trust, and common cognition are shown to impact knowledge transfer in different cultural contexts, particularly with regard to the individualism-low power distance and collectivism-high power distance dimensions defined by Hofstede.
Research limitations/implications
– This analysis was limited to the correlation between the influencing factors and the general performance in knowledge transfer and did not specifically address more detailed dimensions such as efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, this analysis was restricted to the cultural contexts of only two cultural dimensions. However, the review of this broad range of studies provided sufficient data to allow an in-depth analysis of related influencing factors and helped to illustrate and exemplify the influencing mechanisms of culture on knowledge transfer.
Practical implications
– The results presented in this paper can help managers working in cross-cultural environments to understand the key influencing factors that affect knowledge transfer in the workplace. By understanding these factors, managers can more effectively implement methods and procedures that improve cross-cultural knowledge transfer in the work environment.
Originality/value
– This paper provides a detailed insight into the influencing factors found between two distinctive cultural contexts and offers a fresh analysis of influencing factors with regard to knowledge transfer in a cross-cultural environment.
PurposeAnti-programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) antibodies have demonstrated antitumor activity in many cancer entities. Hepatic adverse events (AEs) are one of its major side effects, but the overall risks have not been systematically evaluated. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the overall incidence and risk of developing hepatic AEs in cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and oncology conference proceedings were searched for relevant studies. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of cancer patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors with adequate data on hepatic AEs.ResultsA total of nine randomized controlled trials with a variety of solid tumors were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of PD-1 inhibitors significantly increased the risk of developing all-grade hepatic AEs but not for high-grade hepatic AEs in comparison with chemotherapy or everolimus control. Additionally, the risk of all-grade and high-grade hepatic AEs with a nivolumab/ipilimumab combination was substantially higher than ipilimumab. No significant differences in the risk of all-grade and high-grade hepatic AEs were found between PD-1 inhibitors monotherapy and ipilimumab.ConclusionWhile the use of PD-1 inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of developing hepatic AEs in cancer patients, this is primarily for lower grade events.
These findings indicate that resumption of work is determined not only by medical factors, but also by social factors including gender, type of occupation, employment system, and socioeconomic background.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.