ArticleHERD2024
Are We Speaking the Same Language? Terminology Consistency in EBD.
Article in HERD, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What do we talk about when we talk about ecological determinants of health? A systematic review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Adapting PRISMA Guidelines to Enhance Reporting Quality in Genetic Association Studies: A Framework Proposal.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Pooled it
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
objectiveThe aim of this study is to analyze the consistency, variability, and potential standardization of terminology used to describe architectural variables (AVs) and health outcomes in evidence-based design (EBD) studies.
backgroundIn EBD research, consistent terminology is crucial for studying the effects of AVs on health outcomes. However, there is a possibility that diverse terms have been used by researchers, which could lead to potential confusion and inconsistencies.
methodsThree recent large systematic reviews were used as a source of publications, and 105 were extracted. The analysis aimed to extract a list of the terms used to refer to the unique concepts of AVs and health outcomes, with a specific focus on people with dementia. Each term's frequency was calculated, and statistical tests, including the χ
resultsThe study identified representative terms for AVs and health outcomes, revealing the variability in terminology usage within EBD field for dementia-friendly design. The comparative analysis of the identified terms highlighted patterns of frequency and distribution, shedding light on potential areas for standardization.
conclusionsThe findings emphasize the need for standardized terminologies in EBD to improve communication, collaboration, and knowledge synthesis. Standardization of terminology can facilitate research comparability, enhance the generalizability of findings by creating a common language across studies and practitioners, and support the development of EBD guidelines. The study contributes to the ongoing discourse on standardizing terminologies in the field and provides insights into strategies for achieving consensus among researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in health environmental research.
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.