Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38909251›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

Considering planetary health in health guidelines and health technology assessments: a scoping review protocol.

Thomas Piggott, Maheen Raja, Charlotte T J Michels, Alina Herrmann, Karolina Anna Scahill, Andrea J Darzi, Laura Jewell, K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Hendrik Napierala, Ruben Heuer and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Planetary Health in Health Guidelines: Expert Workshop Report 2024.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

15 authors.

Thomas PiggottDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada. piggott@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1643-5386
Maheen RajaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Charlotte T J MichelsKnowledge Institute of the Dutch Association of Medical Specialists, Mercatorlaan 1200, Postbus 3320, Utrecht, 3502 GH, The Netherlands.
Alina HerrmannInstitute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 324, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Karolina Anna ScahillCollege of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB, UK.
Andrea J DarziDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Laura JewellDepartment of Family Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.
K M Saif-Ur-RahmanCollege of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Galway, University Road, Galway, H91TK33, Ireland.
Hendrik NapieralaInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Ruben HeuerDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin Und Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Grigorios I LeontiadisDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Ignacio NeumannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Holger SchünemannDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, HSC-2C 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3Z5, Canada.
Fiona A MillerInstitute of Health Policy, Management & Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health; Collaborative Centre for Climate, Health & Sustainable Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis protocol outlines a scoping review with the objective of identifying and exploring planetary health considerations within existing health guidelines and health technology assessments (HTA). The insights gained from this review will serve as a basis for shaping future Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidance on planetary health.

methodsWe will adhere to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will conduct a comprehensive search and screening of results in all languages across various databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Systems Evidence, Greenfile, and Environmental Issues. Additionally, we will supplement this search with resources such as the GIN library, BIGG database, Epistemonikos, GRADE guidelines repository, GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool Database, MAGICapp, NICE website, WHO websites, and a manual exploration of unpublished relevant documents using Google incognito mode. Two independent reviewers will screen and assess the full texts of identified documents according to the eligibility criteria. The following information from each full text will be extracted: document title; first author's name; publication year; language; document type; document as a guideline or HTA; the topic/discipline; document purpose/study objective; developing/sponsoring organization; the country in which the study/guideline/HTA report was conducted; definition of planetary health or related concept provided; types of planetary health experts engaged; study methods; suggested methods to assess planetary health; use of secondary data on planetary health outcomes; description for use of life cycle assessment; description for assessing the quality of life cycle; population/intended audience; interventions; category; applicable planetary health boundaries; consideration of social justice/global equity; phase of intervention in life cycle related to planetary health addressed; the measure of planetary health impact; impact on biodiversity/land use; one health/animal welfare mention; funding; and conflict of interest. Data analysis will involve a combination of descriptive statistics and directed content analysis, with results presented in a narrative format and displayed in tables and graphs. DISCUSSION: The final review results will be submitted to open-access peer-reviewed journals for publication when they become available. The research findings will also be disseminated at relevant planetary health conferences and workshops. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/3jmsa ).

Indexed as

Global HealthTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicScoping Reviews as TopicHealth guidelinesHealth technology assessmentsPlanetary health

Identifiers

PMID38909251
PMCPMC11193899

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.