ArticleBMJ open2024
Screening instruments for mental disorders in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol (SCREENING-MD).
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhen mental disorders go undetected until later stages, they can result in poorer health outcomes for patients. Primary healthcare (PHC) stands as a strategic setting for the early identification and management of these mental disorders, given its role as the primary care environment for health service users. This scoping review has the objective of mapping and assessing screening instruments validated for mental disorders that are applicable in PHC, particularly regarding their measurement properties. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will include studies that have developed and validated screening instruments for mental disorders in the PHC context, irrespective of the age group. Searches will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and PsycInfo without imposing restrictions on publication status, publication year or language. Additionally, we will scrutinise the references cited in the selected studies. Our inclusion criteria encompass studies examining any measurement property recommended by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) taxonomy. The selection process, data extraction and quality assessment of studies will be performed independently by pairs of reviewers. To evaluate the risk of bias within the selected studies, we will employ the COSMIN Risk of Bias 2 tools. The collected data will undergo analysis using descriptive statistics and will be presented in an evidence gap map format for each specific mental disorder. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings from this review will be discussed through deliberative dialogue with stakeholders and disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research at the University of Sorocaba (number: 66993323.9.0000.5500). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework - 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z6T5M.
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.