ArticleBMJ open2022
Workplace interventions for cardiovascular diseases: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Workplace Wellness Programs for Employees at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number one cause of death globally, impacting on public and private sectors. Current traditional interventions to prevent CVDs are mainly provided in healthcare centres and even when they are effective, they are not enough to reduce the rising prevalence; therefore, additional strategies are needed. Evidence suggests that health interventions in the workplace supply numerous benefits improving cardiovascular risk factor profiles in individuals. Hence, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to collate the evidence from randomised controlled trials, cluster randomised trials and quasi-experimental studies of workplace interventions to determine their effectiveness in terms of improving cardiovascular risk factors and preventing CVDs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global will be searched to include articles on workplace interventions in adults for CVDs events, cardiometabolic risk factors or behavioural risk factors. The study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and the assessment of the quality of the body of evidence will be conducted by two reviewers working in parallel and disagreements will be resolved by consensus or consultations with a third reviewer. Data synthesis will be done by meta-analysis using random-effects models when possible, otherwise the vote counting method will be applied. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by a χ ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review protocol. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be publicly available. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021276161.
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.