ArticleNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2019
Systematic scoping review protocol of methodologies of chronic respiratory disease surveys in low/middle-income countries.
Article in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term effects of combined environmental factors on respiratory disease mortality in Qingdao city: A time-series investigation.PloS one · 2025Article
- What do we actually know about the biomechanics of pregnancy and labour? A systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Lack of Sample Diversity in Research on Adolescent Depression and Social Media Use: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- GRADE-ADOLOPMENT of clinical practice guidelines and creation of clinical pathways for the primary care management of chronic respiratory conditions in Pakistan.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Relationship between Peak Inspiratory Flow and Patient and Disease Characteristics in Individuals with COPD-A Systematic Scoping Review.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Chronic respiratory disease surveys in adults in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic scoping review of methodological approaches and outcomes.Journal of global health · 2021Article
- Approaches to the rationalization of surgical instrument trays: scoping review and research agenda.BMC health services research · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This protocol describes a systematic scoping review of chronic respiratory disease surveys in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) undertaken as part of the Four Country ChrOnic Respiratory Disease (4CCORD) study within the National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE). Understanding the prevalence and burden of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) underpins healthcare planning. We will systematically scope the literature to identify existing strategies (definitions/questionnaires/diagnostics/outcomes) used in surveys of CRDs in adults in low-resource settings. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI WoS, Global Health and WHO Global Health Library [search terms: prevalence AND CRD (COPD, asthma) AND LMICs, from 1995], and two reviewers will independently extract data from selected studies onto a piloted customised data extraction form. We will convene a workshop of the multidisciplinary 4CCORD research team with representatives from the RESPIRE partners (Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Edinburgh) at which the findings of the scoping review will be presented, discussed and interpreted. The findings will inform a future RESPIRE 4CCORD study, which will estimate CRD burden in adults in Asian LMICs.
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.