ArticlePloS one2023
Best practice guidelines for professional nurses to provide self-management support to adults with tuberculosis-human immunodeficiency virus coinfection: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- How We Treat Drug-Susceptible Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdults with tuberculosis-human immunodeficiency virus coinfection require professional nurses' support to manage their illness, treatment and its effect on their daily lives. This scoping review maps recommendations in clinical or best practice guidelines that guide professional nurses to provide self-management support to adults with tuberculosis-human immunodeficiency virus coinfection in primary healthcare settings.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching for guidelines in six online databases, guideline clearing houses and search engines from 16th April 2022 to 25th May 2022. The title, abstract and full-text screening of guidelines were conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers based on predetermined eligibility criteria. The guidelines were critically appraised with the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Relevant data regarding the characteristics of the guideline, recommendations and underlying evidence were extracted, analysed and reported.
resultsThe six guidelines on self-management support found were developed in four high-income countries. Five of the guidelines recorded <60% across all six domains of the AGREE II instrument. One high-quality guideline scored >60% in all AGREE II domains but was informed by outdated evidence produced between 1977 to 2010. Twenty-five practice, education and organisational/policy recommendations were extracted from the high-quality guideline. The guidelines did not report evidence-to-decision frameworks and the strength of the recommendations. The guidelines also lacked direct underlying evidence on the effectiveness and cost of self-management support. Lastly, the review found a paucity of contextual (equity, acceptability and feasibility) evidence on self-management support among adults with tuberculosis-human immunodeficiency virus in the guidelines.
conclusionThere is a dearth of updated and relevant high-quality guidelines that guide healthcare professionals to provide self-management support to adults with tuberculosis-human immunodeficiency virus coinfection in primary healthcare settings. Systematic reviews of effectiveness, economic and contextual evidence related to self-management support interventions are required for guideline production.
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.