Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30574308›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2018

Explicit and implicit experience of own's body in painful musculoskeletal disorders and rheumatic diseases: A scoping review protocol of available quantitative and qualitative evidence.

Antonello Viceconti, Eleonora Maria Camerone, Deborah Luzzi, Matteo Pardini, Diego Ristori, Alberto Gallace, Marco Testa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

Antonello VicecontiDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1480-4061
Eleonora Maria CameroneDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Deborah LuzziDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Matteo PardiniDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Diego RistoriDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.
Alberto GallaceDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Marco TestaDepartment of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health, University of Genova, Campus of Savona, Savona, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8643-7200

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOur body experience is organized at twofold levels: perceptual and cognitive-emotional. These higher-order processes are clearly different from the primary sensory processing of somatic stimuli (somatosensation). However, most of the available studies have mainly investigated the mechanisms of somatosensation. Moreover, disturbances of our body experience have been documented in some pathological conditions of interest for rehabilitative interventions, but their clinical role and relevance is yet to be clarified. Because in this field we have limited knowledge on perceptual and cognitive body experience, there emerges a need to better clarify this matter. The aim of the present scoping review is to systematically map this topic and to examine the magnitude and the nature of the available evidences. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe scoping review will be performed following the six-stage methodology suggested by Arksey and O'Malley. Ten electronic databases will be investigated since their inception. The search strategy will be peer reviewed by PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist as a quality assurance step. All records retrieved will be screened by two independent reviewers. The Population, Concept, and Context method will be adopted for eligibility criteria and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses will be used for results reporting. Two reviewers with different background will perform the search process independently. One author will extract data, checked by a second reviewer checking the matching with the research questions and goals. Any disagreements will be solved by a third reviewer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for scoping reviews. Dissemination will include submission to peer-reviewed journal and presentations in conferences in the area of rehabilitation.

Indexed as

body imageBody perceptionbody representationchronic painscoping review

Identifiers

PMID30574308
PMCPMC6299299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.