ArticleBMJ open2017
Evidence of accessibility and utility of point-of-care diagnostics as an integral part of prevention of mother-to-child transmission services: systematic scoping review protocol.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPoint-of-care (POC) testing has been shown to help improve healthcare access in resource-limited settings. However, there is paucity of evidence on accessibility of POC testing for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) in resource-limited settings. We propose to conduct a systematic scoping review to map the evidence on POC testing services for PMTCT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review framework, proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, will guide the study. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar and databases within EBSCOhost (Medline and CINAHL). The primary research articles published in peer-reviewed journals and grey articles addressing our question will be included. One reviewer will conduct title screening and the results will be exported to endnote library. Two independent reviewers will perform abstract, then full article screening in parallel. The same process shall be employed to extract data from eligible studies. Data analysis will involve a narrative summary of included studies and thematic content analysis aided by NVIVO software V.11. The mixed methods assessment tool will be used to assess the quality of studies that will be included. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable to this study. The study findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at conferences related to syphilis, HIV, PMTCT, bacterial infections and POC diagnostics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017056267.
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.