Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33109644›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Consequences of health condition labelling: protocol for a systematic scoping review.

Rebecca Sims, Luise Kazda, Zoe A Michaleff, Paul Glasziou, Rae Thomas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca SimsInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1604-8354
Luise KazdaSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4105-0402
Zoe A MichaleffInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0360-4956
Paul GlasziouInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7564-073X
Rae ThomasInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia rthomas@bond.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-2165-5917
Bond University · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWhen health conditions are labelled it is often to classify and communicate a set of symptoms. While diagnostic labelling can provide explanation for an individual's symptoms, it can also impact how individuals and others view those symptoms. Despite existing research regarding the effects of labelling health conditions, a synthesis of these effects has not occurred. We will conduct a systematic scoping review to synthesise the reported consequences and impact of being given a label for a health condition from an individual, societal and health practitioner perspective and explore in what context labelling of health conditions is considered important. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Methodology for Scoping Reviews. Searches will be conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL). Reference lists of included studies will be screened and forward and backward citation searching of included articles will be conducted. We will include reviews and original studies which describe the consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer health condition. We will exclude hypothetical research designs and studies focused on the consequences of labelling cancer conditions, intellectual disabilities and/or social attributes. We will conduct thematic analyses for qualitative data and descriptive or meta-analyses for quantitative data where appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for a scoping review. Results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and lay-person summaries on various online platforms. Findings from this systematic scoping review will identify gaps in current understanding of how, when, why and for whom a diagnostic label is important and inform future research.

Indexed as

Intellectual DisabilityHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicpublic healthqualitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33109644
PMCPMC7592274
OpenAlexW3095364228

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.