ArticleBMJ open2024
Scoping review of review methodologies used for guiding evidence-based practice in critical care: a protocol.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing holistic nursing care for sexual and gender minorities: A scoping review of global training initiatives.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Review
- Rehabilitation interventions at senior day centres for older adults: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA literature review provides a synthesis on a selection of papers about a specific topic. This is used by health practitioners in critical care as in other specialities when making clinical practice decisions. The task of knowledge transfer through the review process of scientific papers involves a variety of methodologies with differing expectations on the quality and rigour that is applied. Exploration on the types of review methodologies selected by the authors of critical care literature may reveal the extent that choice of methodology has on how papers are selected and appraised may influence evidence-based practice recommendations. This scoping review aims to systematically map the breadth of current literature with the objective of identifying the types of review methodologies used by interdisciplinary authors synthesising the literature in adult critical care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's approach in conducting a scoping review will be followed and use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review guidelines in the reporting of findings. Papers with diverse review methodologies will be identified by searching four electronic databases (CINAHL/EBSCO, MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Embase). Grey literature will be excluded due to the clinical nature of the review question. Search results will be reviewed independently by two researchers based on title and abstract followed by full-text papers that meet inclusion criteria. Characteristics of review methodologies will be collected and analysed using a tool developed by the interdisciplinary research team. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will provide an overview of the types of review methodologies most often undertaken with the interdisciplinary research team synthesising the quality of critical care literature. Scrutiny will be applied to the review methodologies selected, the challenges faced and current trends in the transfer of knowledge towards evidence-based practice. The results will be disseminated by publication through a peer-reviewed journal and by presentation as a part of conference proceedings. Ethics approval is not applicable for this scoping review.
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.