Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38286709›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Investigating the characteristics of health-related data collection tools used in randomised controlled trials in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.

Rithvik Karthikeyan, Noor Al-Shamaa, Eve Jacqueline Kelly, Patrick Henn, Frances Shiely, Titus Divala, Kayode Philip Fadahunsi, John O'Donoghue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Importance of Standardized Assessment.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024
    Article
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

8 authors.

Rithvik KarthikeyanUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0000-4539-518X
Noor Al-ShamaaUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0009-0006-1192-1253
Eve Jacqueline KellyUniversity College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Patrick HennSchool of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Frances ShielyEpidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Titus DivalaLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3029-9579
Kayode Philip FadahunsiPrimary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK k.fadahunsi14@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1470-5493
John O'DonoghueASSERT Research Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6056-8640

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth-related data collection tools, including digital ones, have become more prevalent across clinical studies in the last number of years. However, using digital data collection tools in low-income and middle-income countries presents unique challenges. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the data collection tools currently being used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in low-resource settings and evaluate the tools based on the characteristics outlined in the modified Mobile Survey Tool framework. These include functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, portability, effectiveness, cost-benefit, satisfaction, freedom from risk and context coverage. This evidence may provide a guide to selecting a suitable data collection tool for researchers planning to conduct research in low-income and middle-income countries for future studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE. For inclusion, studies must be a RCT, mention a health-related data collection tool and conducted in a low- and middle-income country. Only studies with available full-text and written in English will be included. The search was restricted to studies published between January 2005 and June 2023. This systematic review will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tool. Two review authors will screen the titles and abstracts of search results independently for inclusion. In the initial screening process, the full-text articles will be retrieved if the abstract contains limited information about the study. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, a third author (JO'D) will adjudicate. The study selection process will be outlined in a PRISMA flow-diagram. Data will be analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The included studies and their outcomes will be presented in a table. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023405738.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPovertyCost-Benefit AnalysisData CollectionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHealth informaticsInformation technologyPublic healthSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38286709
PMCPMC10826565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.