ArticleBMJ open2021
Study designs and outcomes used in evaluation studies of hospital-presenting self-harm: protocol for a methodological systematic review.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSelf-harm is the most common risk factor for suicide, and so those who present to hospital following self-harm provide an opportunity for targeted clinical care interventions. Observational studies evaluating such interventions may be useful in overcoming limitations of controlled trials, but study design, statistical analyses and outcomes used must be appropriate. This methodological systematic review will describe, categorise, synthesise and compare the methodological aspects of studies evaluating interventions and aspects of clinical management following hospital-presenting self-harm in both observational and experimental (ie, controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies) study designs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Protocol guidelines were followed in drafting this protocol. Search terms were developed (related to self-harm, hospital presentation and evaluation studies) and adapted for MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and grey literature databases. Two reviewers will independently screen 100 titles/abstracts until consensus is reached, with the remaining screened by one reviewer. Full-text screening will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer, and a second will check all data extracted. Validated risk of bias tools will be used. Data synthesis will focus on the heterogeneity of outcomes used in individual studies. Descriptive summary statistics of the data (eg, key study characteristics, type and frequency of outcomes) will be provided in categorical format, using frequencies and percentages. Outcomes will be reported separately for trials (both randomised and non-randomised trials), observational and quasi-experimental studies. Categorisation of outcomes will be guided by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care resources for reviews of health systems interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be used to inform future studies in the area of hospital-presenting self-harm. Ethical approval is not required for this review. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020208714.
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.