ArticleBMJ open2024
Uncovering the boundary conditions of the association between concerns about falling and physical activity in adult populations: 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. 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
introductionDespite evidence of variation in how concerns about falling influence physical activity, many of the currently available knowledge syntheses merely assume that this relation is uniform across populations and contexts. Therefore, we propose a scoping review protocol to guide a summary of the bodywork that has examined the association between concerns about falling and physical activity in adult populations, with an eye on the availability of empirical evidence of moderation. METHODS AND ANALYSES: Studies reporting on both the concepts of concerns about falling and physical activity among samples with a mean age≥18 years will be included. Five electronic databases will be searched. We will conduct a hand search of the reference lists for all included studies and relevant knowledge syntheses and perform a citing reference search for all included studies using the Web of Science. A team of six reviewers will single-screen titles and abstracts. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of each study based on a full-text examination. Results will be presented using a tree graph to display the moderating factor(s) investigated, and a ratio showing the number of time evidence for moderation was examined by the total number of investigations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The university Human Research Protection Program determined that the proposed scoping review does not qualify as human subject research under federal human subject research regulations (IRB-2023-1656). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and in the form of a one-page summary for extension programme leaders, part of a nationwide Cooperative Extension network.
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.