ArticleSystematic reviews2023
Terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia: a systematic scoping review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. 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.
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe greatest proportion of burn injuries globally occur in South Asia, where there are also high numbers of intentional burns. Burn injury prevention efforts are hampered by poor surveillance data on injury intent. There is a plethora of local routinely collected data in the research literature from South Asia that could be used for epidemiological purposes, but it is not known whether the definitions and methods of differentiation of injury intent are sufficiently homogenous to allow valid study comparisons.
methodsWe will conduct a systematic scoping review to understand terminology and methods used to differentiate injury intent of hospital burn patients in South Asia. The objectives of the study are to: determine the breadth of terminology and common terms used for burn injury intent; to determine if definitions are comparable across studies where the same term is used; and to appraise the rigour of methods used to differentiate burn injury intent and suitability for comparison across studies. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PakMediNet will be searched. Screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers. To be included, the article must be as follows: peer reviewed, primary research, study cutaneous burns, based on hospital patients from a country in South Asia, and use intent terminology or discuss a method of differentiation of injury intent. Results will be restricted to English language studies. No date restrictions will be applied. A plain language summary and terminology section are included for non-specialist readers. DISCUSSION: Results will be used to inform stakeholder work to develop standardised terminology and methods for burn injury intent in South Asia. They will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals wherever possible. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review has been registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DCYNQ ).
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.