ArticleSystematic reviews2019
The prevalence of phantom limb pain and associated risk factors in people with amputations: a systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence and risk factors for phantom limb pain in people with amputations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Experience of adults with upper-limb difference and their views on sensory feedback for prostheses: a mixed methods study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Body Schema Self-Awareness and Related Dream Content Modifications in Amputees Due to Cancer.Brain sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevalence of phantom limb pain (PLP) in people with amputations is unclear because of the conflicting reports across the literature. It is proposed that the conflicting reports on the prevalence of PLP are a consequence of variations in the time period during which the studies were undertaken, countries in which the studies were conducted and recruitment processes implemented during collection of epidemiological data. In consideration of these factors, we aim to gather and critically appraise relevant literature to determine the prevalence estimate of and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations.
methodsWe will use a customised search strategy containing relevant words and terms to search the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost), PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (via EBSCOhost), Africa-Wide Information (via EBSCOhost), Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition (via EBSCOhost) SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier (via EBSCOhost). The risk of bias assessment will be conducted using a risk of bias assessment tool for prevalence studies, and data will be extracted using a piloted customised data extraction sheet. Data extracted from individual studies will be entered into Review Manager 5 and assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Studies will be pooled for meta-analysis using the random-effects model to determine a summary estimate of the prevalence of PLP across included studies. A statistically significant level will be set at p < 0.05. DISCUSSION: As far as we know, a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of, and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations has not been conducted. Given the varying reports in the literature, it is necessary to determine an estimate of the prevalence of PLP to generate an informed conclusion on this subject. The results of this review will be published in an internationally accredited journal and used to inform researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and the public about the burden of, and risk factors for PLP. This will be done with a further aim to improve the quality of pain management in society. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018094821.
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.