ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
Findings from a scoping review.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Getting to full disclosure: HCV testing and status disclosure behaviors among PWID and their injecting partners.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Enhancing health equity considerations in guidelines: health equity extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Acceptability of the social uses of the COVID-19 screening test among women in southern Benin.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Article
- COVID-19 vaccination at a hospital in Paris: Spatial analyses and inverse equity hypothesis.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Factors associated with the utilization of diagnostic tools among countries with different income levels during the COVID-19 pandemic.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
- Breaking down the barriers to health equity.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify how equity has been considered in large-scale infectious disease testing initiatives. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingLarge-scale testing interventions are instrumental for infectious disease control and a central tool for the coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. We searched Web of Science: core collection, Embase and Medline in June 2021 and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations for scoping reviews. We critically analyzed the content of all included articles.
resultsOur search resulted in 2448 studies of which 86 were included for data extraction after screening. Of the included articles, 80% reported on COVID-19 -related screening programs. None of the studies presented a formal definition of (in)equity in testing, however, 71 articles did indirectly include elements of equity through the justification of their target population. Of these 71 studies, 58% articles indirectly alluded to health equity according to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, an acronym used to identify a list of socially stratifying characteristics driving inequity in health outcomes.
conclusionThe studies included in our scoping review did not explicitly consider equity in their design or evaluation which is imperative for the success of infectious disease testing programs.
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.