ArticleBMJ open2025
Congenital colour vision deficiency in healthcare professionals: a scoping review protocol of the impact on clinical practice and patient safety.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCongenital colour vision deficiency (CVD), known as colour blindness, is a common visual problem affecting around 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women. It is known that people who have red-green CVD, the most common phenotype, can have difficulty differentiating colours and this can impact the ability to perform clinical tasks related to patient care. The objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence and the impact on clinical practice and patient safety arising from congenital CVD in healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow the methodological framework outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute and by Arksey and O'Malley and we will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Reviews checklist. The following databases will be searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Lens.org and the Trip medical database (filtered for low-income countries) with no limit on earliest date and up to 30 November 2024. Grey literature will be identified by planned searches in the Overton Index. All articles related to 'CVD in healthcare professionals in clinical practice or in training' will be included. The study will also include other professionals who may be involved in healthcare but are not involved in direct patient-facing activities. It will be limited to congenital CVD and will exclude the impact of visual impairment and acquired CVD.There will be an initial search to validate the search strategy. Titles and abstracts will be screened to determine eligibility, and the full text will be reviewed using a data extraction framework. Data will be extracted, collated and then mapped and summarised to present the relevant key findings and outcomes from the papers in tabular and visualised form with a narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review does not need ethical approval and will provide an overview of the impact of congenital CVD on clinical practice and patient safety. This will determine the future need and direction of research in this area and identify methodological challenges and opportunities. The results will be published open access in a peer-reviewed journal. REGISTRATION: INPLASY (DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2024.11.0099).
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.