SynthesisF1000Research2022
Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Core outcome set for intervention research on snakebite envenomation in South Asia.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes in intervention research on snakebite envenomation: a systematic review.F1000Research · 2022Pooled it
- Look what you make my tissues do: The role of metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in Bothrops snakebites.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Review
- Use, knowledge, & attitudes on core outcome sets among trialists & systematic reviewers in India: A survey.The Indian journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA core outcome set (COS) is a minimal list of consensus outcomes that should be used in all intervention research in a specific domain. COS enhance the ability to undertake meaningful comparisons and to understand the benefits or harms of different treatments. A first step in developing a COS is to identify outcomes that have been used previously. We did this global systematic review to provide the foundation for development of a region-specific COS for snakebite envenomation. Methods: We searched 15 electronic databases, eight trial registries, and reference lists of included studies to identify reports of relevant trials, protocols, registry records and systematic reviews. We extracted verbatim data on outcomes, their definitions, measures, and time-points. Outcomes were classified as per an existing outcome taxonomy, and we identified unique outcomes based on similarities in the definition and measurement of the verbatim outcomes.
resultsWe included 107 records for 97 studies which met our inclusion criteria. These reported 538 outcomes, with a wide variety of outcome measures, definitions, and time points for measurement. We consolidated these into 88 unique outcomes, which we classified into core areas of mortality (1, 1.14 %), life impact (6, 6.82%), resource use (15, 17.05%), adverse events (7, 7.95%), physiological/clinical (51, 57.95%), and composite (8, 9.09%) outcomes. The types of outcomes varied by the type of intervention, and by geographic region. Only 15 of the 97 trials (17.04%) listed Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMS).
conclusionTrials evaluating interventions for snakebite demonstrate heterogeneity on outcomes and often omit important information related to outcome measurement (definitions, instruments, and time points). Developing high quality, region-specific COS for snakebite could inform the design of future trials and improve outcome reporting. Measurement of PROMS, resource use and life impact outcomes in trials on snakebite remains a gap.
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.