ArticleBMJ open2022
Database quality assessment in research in paramedicine: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Database quality assessment in research in paramedicine: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023Article
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
introductionThe paramedic practice environment presents unique challenges to data documentation and access, as well as linkage to other parts of the healthcare system. Variable or unknown data quality can influence the validity of research in paramedicine. A number of database quality assessment (DQA) frameworks have been developed and used to evaluate data quality in other areas of healthcare. The extent these or other DQA practices have been applied to paramedic research is not known. Accordingly, this scoping review aims to describe the range, extent and nature of DQA practices within research in paramedicine. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow established methods for the conduct (Johanna Briggs Institute; Arksey and O'Malley) and reporting (Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews) of scoping reviews. In consultation with a professional librarian, a search strategy was developed representing the applicable population, concept and context. This strategy will be applied to MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), Embase (Elsevier), Scopus (Elsevier) and CINAHL (EBSCO) to identify studies published from 2011 through 2021 that assess paramedic data quality as a stated goal. Studies will be included if they report quantitative results of DQA using data that relate primarily to the paramedic practice environment. Protocols, commentaries, case studies, interviews, simulations and experimental data-processing techniques will be excluded. No restrictions will be placed on language. Study selection will be performed by two reviewers, with a third available to resolve conflicts. Data will be extracted from included studies using a data-charting form piloted and iteratively revised based on studies known to be relevant. Results will be summarised in a chart of study characteristics, DQA-specific outcomes and key findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. Results will be submitted to relevant conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
trial registration10.17605/OSF.IO/Z287T.
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.