Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28913683›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2017

An Evidence Map of the Women Veterans' Health Research Literature (2008-2015).

Elisheva R Danan, Erin E Krebs, Kristine Ensrud, Eva Koeller, Roderick MacDonald, Tina Velasquez, Nancy Greer, Timothy J Wilt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Elisheva R DananVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. Elizabeth.Danan@va.gov.
Erin E KrebsVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Kristine EnsrudVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Eva KoellerVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Roderick MacDonaldVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Tina VelasquezVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Nancy GreerVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.
Timothy J WiltVA HSR&D Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Healthcare System, 1 Veterans Drive (152), Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen comprise a growing proportion of Veterans seeking care at Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities. VA initiatives have accelerated changes in services for female Veterans, yet the corresponding literature has not been systematically reviewed since 2008. In 2015, VA Women's Health Services and the VA Women's Health Research Network requested an updated literature review to facilitate policy and research planning.

methodsThe Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program performed a systematic search of research related to female Veterans' health published from 2008 through 2015. We extracted study characteristics including healthcare topic, design, sample size and proportion female, research setting, and funding source. We created an evidence map by organizing and presenting results within and across healthcare topics, and describing patterns, strengths, and gaps.

resultsWe identified 2276 abstracts and assessed each for relevance. We excluded 1092 abstracts and reviewed 1184 full-text articles; 750 were excluded. Of 440 included articles, 208 (47%) were related to mental health, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (71 articles), military sexual trauma (37 articles), and substance abuse (20 articles). The number of articles addressing VA priority topic areas increased over time, including reproductive health, healthcare organization and delivery, access and utilization, and post-deployment health. Three or fewer articles addressed each of the common chronic diseases: diabetes, hypertension, depression, or anxiety. Nearly 400 articles (90%) used an observational design. Eight articles (2%) described randomized trials.

conclusionsOur evidence map summarizes patterns, progress, and growth in the female Veterans' health and healthcare literature. Observational studies in mental health make up the majority of research. A focus on primary care delivery over clinical topics in primary care and a lack of sex-specific results for studies that include men and women have contributed to research gaps in addressing common chronic diseases. Interventional research using randomized trials is needed.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandHealth StatusHumansMental HealthResearch DesignVeteransVeterans HealthWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID28913683
PMCPMC5698220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.