Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37817250›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

A protocol for ongoing systematic scoping reviews of World Trade Center Health research.

Thomas W Concannon, Ramya Chari, Justin Lee, Liisa Hiatt, Laura J Faherty

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Thomas W ConcannonThe RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza Suite 920, Boston, MA, USA. tconcann@rand.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-3055
Ramya ChariThe RAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, USA.
Justin LeeThe RAND Corporation, Arlington, VA, USA.
Liisa HiattThe RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Laura J FahertyThe RAND Corporation, 20 Park Plaza Suite 920, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

NIOSH CDC HHS 75D30119A05147
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program ("Program") seeks to assess the inventory, quality, and impact of its funded research in the context of all clinical and translational research involving WTC populations. This paper presents a protocol for ongoing scoping reviews of WTC-related health research.

methodsUsing terms relevant to the September 11 attacks, we will search OVID MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase for records of peer-reviewed publications. Title, abstract, and full text screening will be used to exclude records according to a priori criteria. Data abstraction will be performed on all articles that meet inclusion criteria using a standardized query form that was developed in collaboration with NIOSH. A team of reviewers will be trained to abstract data from included articles. Articles will be double-reviewed, and disagreements will be adjudicated.

resultsWe will summarize existing research involving WTC populations. The summary will assess the extent, nature, and signals of impact of WTC-related health research.

conclusionsOur review will lay the groundwork for additional study of research impact by identifying population, clinical, and translational topics that can be assessed through future focused reviews. It will also support planning activities by Program policy makers and stakeholders as they work to achieve the Program's research goals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This publication serves as documentation of the protocol.

Indexed as

Global HealthHumansLongitudinal StudiesScoping Reviews as Topic9/11 attacksDisasterHealthTranslational researchWorld Trade Center

Identifiers

PMID37817250
PMCPMC10563243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.