Uterine fibroids and Black people of African descent globally: a scoping review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that when adjusted for age and other factors such as Body Mass Index, age of first pregnancy, years since last pregnancy and alcohol consumption, Black women are three times more likely to suffer from fibroids compared with the general population. When compared with the general population, Black women experience larger uterine fibroids with an earlier onset and more frequent and severe symptoms debilitating symptoms. Reported symptoms include pelvic pain, bladder issues, and heavy and/or abnormal menstrual bleeding. For Black women in perimenopause or menopause, uterine fibroids are more likely to continue growing rather than slow or cease. To design empirical research that addresses the issue of uterine fibroids among Black people of African descent, it is important to understand the current state of literature on this issue. The objectives of this scoping review are to understand and describe the extent and type of literature available regarding Black people of African descent with uterine fibroids globally, to identify the gaps within existing literature, and to provide recommendations for future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with JBI scoping review methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Eligibility criteria for this review include sources that involve Black people of African descent who have uterine fibroids. This review is global in context and does not include jurisdictional, geographical, regional or study setting restrictions. A comprehensive search strategy developed in collaboration with a health sciences librarian will be used to identify and retrieve relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature. Databases including CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Gender Studies Database (EBSCO), Scopus (Elsevier) and LILACS (VHL) will be searched from inception to January 2024. Unpublished studies and grey literature searches will include The Society for Women's Health Research, Black Women's Health Imperative, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest), Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD.org) and Google search. All relevant sources will be uploaded to Covidence and undergo title and abstract screening by two independent team members. Selected sources will then undergo full-text review by two independent team members. Sources meeting the eligibility criteria will undergo extraction by two independent team members. Thematic analysis will be used to classify the extracted data points into categories according to the purpose or objective of the source, the methods used, the geographical region or jurisdiction of the source, key findings and recommendations. The synthesis of results will align with the review objective and question using charts or tables where necessary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethical approval. Dissemination of the review results includes the publication of a full report in a peer-reviewed journal as well as presenting the review results at local, national and international conferences. The results of the scoping review will also be disseminated through community events and social media using infographics and brochures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,079 | 0,072 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,018 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,075 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».