ArticlePloS one2024
Research on stroke patients' perception of recurrence risk: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Consistency between recurrent risk perception and objective recurrence risk in patients after atrial fibrillation ablation: a cross-sectional study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Mechanisms underlying the association between perceived recurrence risk and negative emotions in patients with ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStroke, a major global cause of death and disability, has a high recurrence rate that significantly affects patients' physical, psychological, and economic well-being. Despite the importance of health risk perception in preventive measures, most stroke patients struggle to accurately assess the risk of recurrence. Current research on stroke recurrence risk perception is still exploratory, with a lack of systematic understanding of the influencing factors. This study aims to comprehensively analyze the current state of stroke recurrence research and the factors that influenced recurrence and assess the effectiveness and limitations of various assessment tools to guide future research and intervention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework as well as the updated scoping review methodology guidance by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Review results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. The search strategy will be developed via keywords, such as stroke, recurrence risk perception, and influencing factors. We will systematically search seven English databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and MEDLINE, as well as four Chinese databases, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure for Biomedical Literature. Studies published in both English and Chinese will be included. Data will be extracted via a standardized form and summarized through quantitative (frequency) and qualitative analyses (narrative synthesis). Furthermore, the findings will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since this review involves collecting data from existing literature and does not involve human participants, ethical approval is not required. Research findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF). Relevant materials and potential following updates are available at https://osf.io/7kq5t.
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.