ArticleBMJ open2024
Mapping evidence on the regulations affecting accessibility, availability and management of snake antivenom globally: a scoping review 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mapping Evidence on the Regulations Affecting the Accessibility, Availability, and Management of Snake Antivenom Globally: A Scoping Review.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSnakebite envenomation has been declared a neglected tropical disease by the WHO since 2017. The disease is endemic in affected areas due to the lack of availability and access to antivenom, despite it being the standard treatment for snakebites. This challenge is perpetuated by the shortcomings of the regulatory systems and policies governing the management of antivenoms. This study aims to map the evidence about regulations of snake antivenom globally and identify gaps in the literature. This protocol provides an overview of the methodology and analysis which will be used to conduct the scoping review. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review follows the guidelines from the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews and will be reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A search strategy was developed with assistance from a health sciences librarian, and the search was done using six relevant databases. The databases used are PubMed, SCOPUS, ProQuest Central, Africa Wide Web, Academic Search Output and Web of Science. Articles in the English language and between 2009 and 2023 were included. The search results were collated, duplicates were removed and results were exported to Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai/) for screening. The initial screening for titles and abstracts is currently in progress, and thereafter the second round of screening will be done for full texts. Data extraction will be done using Google Forms. The results of the review will be synthesised using quantitative and qualitative tools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will provide guidance for studies investigating regulatory gaps globally and inform future policies governing antivenom management. Ethics approval for the complete postgraduate project was obtained from the University of Pretoria Research Ethics Committee. The review will be published in a scientific journal, and findings will also be disseminated using conference presentations.
trial registrationThis review has been registered on Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/54zja.
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.