ArticleBMJ open2023
Mapping the evidence on assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an interdisciplinary consensus statement for assessing fitness for work at heights in the South African construction industry: a virtual Modified Nominal Group Technique study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Mapping the evidence on the assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFalls from height are a leading cause of serious injury and fatality globally. In South Africa, work at heights is regulated by occupational health and safety legislation, which places responsibility on employers to ensure their workers are fit for high-risk work. There is however no formal procedure or consensus on how fitness to work at heights should be assessed. This paper presents an a priori protocol for a scoping review that seeks to identify and map the current evidence base around the assessment of fitness to work at heights. It forms the initial phase of a PhD study aimed at developing an interdisciplinary consensus statement for assessing fitness to work at heights in the South African construction industry. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scoping review framework and will be guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. An iterative search will be conducted in a selection of multidisciplinary databases including, Proquest Central, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, PsychINFO and Google Scholar. Thereafter, searches for grey literature will be performed in Google.com and websites of various national and international agencies, governing bodies and professional organisations with an interest in occupational health and work at heights. Where appropriate, targeted requests for clarification for further information will be undertaken with information sources. A descriptive qualitative content analysis of the results will be conducted and a level of evidence rating will be assigned to each study using the JBI approach. This will allow us to provide some commentary on the rigour of the existing evidence base. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the PhD study was granted by the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, ethics reference number, 486/2021. Results of the scoping review will be submitted to a scientific journal for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework at osf.io/yd5gw.
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.