ArticleBMJ open2022
Protocol for a systematic review of economic evaluations conducted on gender-transformative interventions aimed at preventing unintended pregnancy and promoting sexual health in adolescents.
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
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn the context of family planning and reproductive health, a gender-transformative approach involves helping communities understand and challenge the social norms that perpetuate inequalities between men and women, and improving women's access to key services.The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesise the best available evidence on economic evaluations of gender transformative interventions targeted at preventing unintended pregnancy and promoting sexual health in adolescents, assess the methodological quality of the economic evaluation studies and identify gaps in the evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the following bibliographic databases for economic evaluations that meet our selection criteria; PubMed, Cochrane, National Health Service EE database, SCOPUS, CINHAL, Web of Science and Paediatric EE Database. We will additionally conduct a grey literature search. The search will be conducted for the period 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2021. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment. We will consider the following outcomes from economic evaluations; relative resource use, cost and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, incremental net benefit ratio or net present value, quality-adjusted life-years and disability-adjusted life-years. Quality assessment will be conducted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist. Results will be reported using summary tables and narratively. Attempts will be made to use the Joanna Briggs Institute three-by-three dominance ranking matrix tool to compare relevant cost-effectiveness studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because the review will not use individual patient data, instead publicly available economic evaluation research studies will be used. However, an ethics exemption was obtained from the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee, Reference No: X21/05/012. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant scientific conference. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264698.
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.