ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
A systematic review protocol for assessing equity in clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury and homelessness.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Equity considerations in clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury and the criminal justice system: A systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Equity considerations in clinical practice guidelines for traumatic brain injury and homelessness: a systematic review.EClinicalMedicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: When used optimally, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can reduce inappropriate variations in practice, improve application of research to practice, and enhance the quality of healthcare. However, a common criticism, despite its potential, is the lack of consideration for equity and disadvantaged populations. Objectives: This protocol is for a systematic review of CPGs for traumatic brain injury (TBI) and homelessness that aims to assess (1) the extent to which evidence regarding TBI and homelessness is integrated in CPGs for homelessness and TBI, respectively, and (2) equity considerations in CPGs for TBI and homelessness. Methods and analysis: The methodology for this review is guided by the PRISMA-P, validated search filters for CPGs, and methodological guides to searching systematic reviews and gray literature. CPGs will be identified from (a) databases for peer-reviewed literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo), (b) targeted websites and Google Search for gray literature, and (c) reference lists of peer-reviewed and gray literature that meet the eligibility criteria. Searching for gray literature, including from guideline-specific resources, is a critical component of this review and is considered an efficient approach to identifying CPGs, given the low precision of searching peer-reviewed databases. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. A narrative synthesis will be conducted to identify the proportion of CPGs that integrate evidence about TBI and homelessness and how TBI and homelessness is or is not integrated in CPGs. Quality appraisal will take the form of an equity assessment of CPGs and will be completed independently by two reviewers. Conclusion: This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic review of CPGs for TBI and homelessness. The resulting systematic review from this protocol will form an evidence-based foundation to advance CPGs for individuals with lived experience of TBI and homelessness. Systematic review registration: identifier: CRD42021287696.
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.