ReviewBMC public health2026
Public health interventions for Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in humanitarian emergencies: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in BMC public health, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) encounter significant challenges in humanitarian emergencies due to limited resources and disrupted health systems. Systematic reviews can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of interventions for NCDs in these settings. This overview aims to synthesize and critically appraise the current body of evidence from systematic reviews on public health interventions for NCDs in humanitarian emergencies.
methodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews following the Cochrane guidelines for Overviews of Reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR). We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Global Health) for relevant systematic reviews. We extracted and synthesized data on interventions and outcomes from systematic reviews focusing on cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes. We performed a narrative synthesis and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews.
resultsOur search yielded 1,993 citations. Sixteen systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Six systematic reviews focused on multiple NCDs and combined interventions, five on cancer, five on diabetes, two on cardiovascular diseases, and there were no reviews on chronic respiratory diseases. The included systematic reviews highlighted the effectiveness of interventions such as electronic health records (EHRs) and primary healthcare for managing NCDs. Culturally tailored interventions involving community members and religious leaders were also found to be promising, particularly in improving cancer screening outcomes. Numerous barriers to implementation were also noted, and these included financial, logistical, and cultural challenges. Nonetheless, the overall quality of the included systematic reviews was low, with 81% being rated as "critically low confidence".
conclusionsThis overview provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on interventions for NCDs in humanitarian emergencies. While certain interventions show promise, the quality of evidence is generally low. Future systematic reviews should prioritize implementing rigorous methods and transparent reporting. Additionally, more studies are needed to examine the cost-effectiveness of interventions, as evidence on costs and cost-effectiveness was almost non-existent. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) and can be accessed at [ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HF4QN ].
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.