ArticleBMJ open2021
Assessing the effectiveness of workplace accommodations in facilitating return to work after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors Influencing Return to Work Among Women With Acquired Brain Injury.Occupational therapy international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionReturning to work and sustaining employment can be a significant challenge for traumatic brain injury (TBI) survivors. Within the literature, there is recurring support for the role of workplace accommodations in effective and early return-to-work (RTW). To date, however, there has been a lack of systematic reviews exploring the specific role of workplace accommodations within the context of RTW after TBI. The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach that will be undertaken to systematically review the literature and to assess the effectiveness of workplace accommodations in facilitating RTW. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of nine databases will be searched systematically using the concepts 'Brain injury,' 'RTW' and 'Job Accommodations.' Study selection will be performed independently by three reviewers, based on predetermined eligibility criteria through two rounds of screening using, first, the title and abstract, followed by a full-text search. Extracted information will include the study's purpose, design, and setting; the data source and type; the severity of TBI and the diagnostic criterion used; a comprehensive description of the intervention provided; the RTW outcome variables and the statistical methods used, etc. The data will be tabulated and narratively synthesised. Systematic review registration: This protocol has been registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this review intends to use pre-existing published studies hence research ethics board approvals will not be required. Nevertheless, this review will follow the ethical and governance standards in the data management and presentation of results. The findings from this review will potentially be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (electronically and in print). The results of this review will be presented at both national/international conferences and shared with stakeholders influencing RTW practices. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043517.
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.