ArticleBMJ open2017
Protocol for a scoping review of skin self-care of people with spinal cord injury.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement of People With Lived Experience in Spinal Cord Injury to Address Innovation Priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, increasing methodological references have been used in scientific research; these are points of support in the search for evidence, formulation and elaboration of instruments, scales, guideline and protocols. However, significant variability currently exists in scoping review conduct and reporting, thus limiting the potential of the methodology to advance research and practice about skin self-care of people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Our objective was to perform a scoping review protocol within the health rehabilitation context of people with SCI, focusing on skin self-care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The protocol was developed by using the scoping review methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and further refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute, incorporating insights from more recent innovations in scoping review methodology. Sensitive searches of 13 electronic databases from 2007 to 2017 will be supplemented by grey literature searches. Two reviewers using a tool developed for this scoping review will screen eligible studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review will undertake a secondary analysis of previously collected data and does not require ethical approval; however, the ethical precepts of copyright will be respected. The results will facilitate a better understanding of the practical health rehabilitation context of people with SCI, the impacts of these rehabilitations and how to build an evidence base for this work in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.