ArticleBMJ open2022
Non-erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, non-iron therapies for the management of anaemia: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreoperative anaemia is associated with poor postoperative outcomes and is the strongest predictor of allogenic blood transfusion, which contributes further to patient morbidity. Emphasis has been placed on correcting anaemia prior to surgery to mitigate these outcomes. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the benefit of currently recommended interventions. With greater understanding of iron haemostasis and erythropoiesis, novel therapies have been identified. These are at varying stages of development with some demonstrating promising results in patients with chronic kidney disease. It is not known how these agents have been studied outside this population, particularly in the perioperative context. To address this, we will conduct a scoping review of the published literature to chart the evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews framework. The electronic database search will include Scopus, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Excerpta Medica database (Ovid), with no language restrictions, and will include all publications since 1 January 2010. This review will have three objectives: (1) to describe the mechanisms of action for novel agents, (2) to describe the level of evidence and stage of development of novel agents in a perioperative setting, and (3) to determine the potential agents suitable for prospective controlled trials in a preoperative or postoperative patient cohort and aiming to improve patient-centred outcomes. The review process will involve two reviewers with a third reviewer resolving disagreements. Data will be extracted and organised with subsequent analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require research ethics approval. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and inform the development of future prospective trials based on established evidence from potential therapeutic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework registry (DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/SM3UH, https://osf.io/sm3uh/?view_only=39876ccf7a4348dfbd566535b957a7db).Cite Now.
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.