ArticleMedicine2020
Appraisal and recommendation synthesis of guidelines and consensuses for interventions of pressure ulcers: A protocol for systematic review.
Article in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressure ulcers (PU) bring a considerable physical and mental burden on patients and their families, and have put families and government under tremendous pressure to cover the cost for treatment. Therefore, this protocol proposes to evaluate the quality of existing PU clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and compare the similarities and differences between its recommendations in order to improve the treatment efficacy and reduce the PU treatment cost.
methodsElectronic databases and specific databases of CPGs will be searched. Study selection and data collection will be performed independently by two reviewers. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) Instrument and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included CPGs. Bubble plot will be used to describe the difference of the quality, and mind mapping will be plotted to illustrate the comparison of recommendations of a guideline when needed. R software, MindMaster and Excel will be used.
resultsThe results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.
conclusionThis systematic review will provide comprehensive evidence of CPGs of PU. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020149176.
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.