Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101795›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2023

The '

Emma L Karran, Aidan G Cashin, Trevor Barker, Mark A Boyd, Alessandro Chiarotto, Omar Dewidar, Jennifer Petkovic, Saurab Sharma, Peter Tugwell, G Lorimer Moseley and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Social Needs Screening Tools for Clinical Populations in Australia and New Zealand: A Scoping Review and Critical Analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Clinical correlations with unmet social needs in critically ill children with asthma.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2025
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Emma L KarranIIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Aidan G CashinCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Trevor BarkerIIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Mark A BoydFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Alessandro ChiarottoDepartment of General Practice, Erasmus University/Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Omar DewidarBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Jennifer PetkovicBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Saurab SharmaCentre for Pain IMPACT, Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9817-5372
Peter TugwellDepartment of Medicine and School of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
G Lorimer MoseleyIIMPACT in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3750-4945
Identifying Social Factors that Stratify Health Opportunities and Outcomes (ISSHOOs) Collaborative Core Research Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Adverse social determinants of health give rise to individual-level social needs that have the potential to negatively impact health. Screening patients to identify unmet social needs is becoming more widespread. A review of the content of currently available screening tools is warranted. The aim of this scoping review was to determine Methods: We pre-registered the study on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dqan2/). We searched MEDLINE and Embase from 01/01/2010 to 3/05/2022 to identify eligible studies reporting tools designed for use in primary healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently screened studies, a single reviewer extracted data. We summarised the characteristics of included studies descriptively and calculated the number of studies that collected data relevant to specific social needs categories. We identified sub-categories to classify the types of questions relevant to each of the main categories. Results: We identified 420 unique citations, and 27 were included. Nine additional studies were retrieved by searching for tools that were used or referred to in excluded studies. Questions relating to food insecurity and the physical environment in which a person lives were the most frequently included items (92-94% of tools), followed by questions relating to economic stability and aspects of social and community context (81%). Seventy-five percent of the screening tools included items that evaluated five or more social needs categories (mean 6.5; standard deviation 1.75). One study reported that the tool had been 'validated'; 16 reported 'partial' validation; 12 reported that the tool was 'not validated' and seven studies did not report validation processes or outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansPrimary carePublic healthScoping reviewScreening toolsSocial determinants of healthSocial needs

Identifiers

PMID37101795
PMCPMC10124546

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.