ArticleBMJ open2024
Women's experiences of the diagnostic journey in uterine adenomyosis: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUterine adenomyosis is a benign gynaecological disease that causes physical and psychological problems, impacting on relationships. It is poorly understood and consequently may be diagnosed late. This protocol describes the process of conducting a systematic scoping review to retrieve and describe literature examining the daily experience and impact of living with uterine adenomyosis. It will explore the journey to diagnosis (and perceptions of what this process is like); identify the main concepts currently used in the literature and highlight gaps in knowledge for future research in relevant populations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, the population-concept-context approach is used to form clear review questions. A three-phase search strategy will locate published and unpublished evidence from multiple sources. All articles reporting on the personal experiences of women diagnosed with uterine adenomyosis will be considered. Findings from qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method study designs from all settings will be included, not limited by geography but restricted to English. Documents will be screened by the primary researcher, supported by university supervisors. Search outputs will be presented using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 flow diagram. No formal quality appraisal will be conducted. Review findings will be descriptively collated and reported consistent with the Scoping Review Extension of the PRISMA checklist. Patient and public involvement engagement reflected a positive response for the project that this protocol supports. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As primary data will not be collected, formal ethical approval is not required. Prepared as part of a professional doctorate thesis, the findings of this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, support groups and social media networks.
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.