Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36111085›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2022

Global Health 101.

Vanessa M Welten, Kirsten F A A Dabekaussen, Nelya Melnitchouk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vanessa M WeltenDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kirsten F A A DabekaussenDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nelya MelnitchoukDepartment of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global health is an evolving field that has been broadly defined as the promotion of health for all through transnational collaboration and research. It centers on the concepts of equity and collaboration. The focus of global health has recently undergone a major shift toward emphasizing the importance of a systems-based approach to healthcare delivery, which considers not only the target disease but also the many contextual factors, influencing the ability to deliver care equitably to a population to reduce the burden of any particular disease. Thus, an important global health delivery framework has been established to outline this inter- and multi-disciplinary systems-based to address major global health issues and improve health for all globally. The practice of global health, whether in research or in active intervention, necessitates guiding principles to ensure ethical conduct in the transnational partnerships and efforts to advance the field. With the introduction of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, there has been a major shift in response to epidemiologic transition to focus on reducing the burden of noncommunicable diseases, including cancer, which disproportionately impact low-to-middle income countries. This is true for colorectal cancer, with care challenged by significant gaps in screening, early detection, and referral systems.

Indexed as

capacitycollaborationequitynoncommunicable diseasesustainability

Identifiers

PMID36111085
PMCPMC9470279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.