ArticleBMJ open2026
Concept of premature mortality: protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPremature mortality (PM) is a concept applied in public health, epidemiology, medicine, demography and economics. Its conceptualisations vary across disciplines and often rely on implicit normative assumptions. A scoping review is needed to build a typology to systematise PM conceptualisations and make their assumptions explicit. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Searches in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (to July 2025) identified 53 470 records, of which 20 612 duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts of 32 858 unique records were screened in Rayyan using filters, machine learning and manual review. To the large volume of the remaining articles, we applied purposeful sampling supported by the BERT language model, grouping articles based on titles and abstracts into 436 subtopics. We selected one representative and one randomly sampled article from each group. 84 articles identified during manual screening as conceptually distinct were added to the review data. In total, 954 articles will be screened in detail and reviewed in full text. Review questions were developed based on six predefined dimensions of PM conceptualisations: inclusiveness, study objective, reference point, conceptual centrality, discipline and ethical framing. Review data will be extracted across these dimensions. We will develop a typology of PM conceptualisations to support more transparent and consistent use of the concept across disciplines, including normative assumptions of its conceptualisations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this review uses secondary literature, ethical approval is not required. Results will be published in an open access, peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences.
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.