ArticleFrontiers in public health2024
Perspective: leveraging review protocols to advance implementation science in support of older adults' health equity.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, there has been an increasing call for dissemination and implementation science to improve the health equity of older adults. However, improving the health equity of older adults requires methods that allow for an in-depth understanding of the existing research. While the value of review articles is widely recognized, the value of publishing review protocols is an emerging paradigm with great potential to advance implementation science and aging research. In this article, we propose that prior to review articles, review protocols are necessary as they provide a clear and comprehensive search strategy, which greatly enhances the quality and rigor of reviews. More specifically, we argue that review protocols are indispensable because they support: (1) a clearly defined and comprehensive search methodology; (2) reviewer feedback to mitigate potential issues; and (3) registration to reduce risk of research replication. Additionally, we propose three strategies to accelerate review protocols in implementation science to support older adults' health equity.
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.