ArticlePloS one2026
Assessment of weight bias among students and health professionals in medical radiation science. A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
Weight bias is pervasive in health care, contributing to adverse physical and psychological outcomes for affected individuals. While weight bias has been studied in various healthcare contexts, its presence and impact within medical radiation science remain underexplored. This systematic review aims to synthesise the existing literature on the assessment of weight bias in medical radiation science. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506662). Comprehensive searches will be conducted across multiple electronic databases using predefined search strategies. Retrieved records will be imported into Covidence for title and abstract screening, followed by full-text review. Two independent reviewers will assess study eligibility and extract data. Methodological quality will be evaluated using a multi-tool appraisal approach tailored to the design of each study. Risk-of-bias will be assessed, and meta-biases will be explored through the inclusion of grey literature. Confidence in the cumulative evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This systematic review protocol will provide a comprehensive synthesis of the quantitative assessment of weight bias among professionals and students in medical radiation science. By mapping how weight bias is measured, the findings may support awareness-raising efforts and inform development of strategies to reduce weight bias in education and clinical practice. Once complete, the review will be shared internationally via presentations or posters at conferences. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.