ArticleBMJ open2024
Personal strategies to reduce the effects of landscape fire smoke on asthma-related outcomes: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLandscape fire smoke (LFS) contains several hazardous air pollutants that are known to be detrimental to human health. People with asthma are more vulnerable to the health impact of LFS than general populations. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of personal strategies to reduce the effect of LFS on asthma-related outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will electronically search databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register to identify eligible articles for the review. Screening of search results and data extraction from included studies will be completed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias (RoB 2) will be assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomised Studies for observational studies, the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the RoB 2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-RCTs. A random-effect meta-analysis will be performed to determine the pooled summary of findings of the included studies. If meta-analysis is not possible, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will synthesise the available evidence obtained from published studies and as such, no ethical approval is required. The review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022341120.
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.