Clinical Protocols and Guidelines for Hypertension and Diabetes in Incarcerated Populations: A Scoping Review

PEER REVIEWED

During identification of studies via databases and registers, 2,682 records were identified: 327 in Medline/PubMed, 29 in Embase, 1,769 in Virtual Health Library, 125 in EBSCOhost, 44 in Cochrane Protocols, 34 in Web of Science, and 354 in Scopus. Then, 2,432 records were screened after duplicates were removed. Of these, 2,049 records were excluded. Of those, 383 records were sought for retrieval; 368 records were not retrieved. The remaining 15 records were assessed for eligibility, and all 15 records were excluded because they did not answer the research question. In a second track of searching, during identification of studies via other methods, 1,969 records were identified: 4 in BDTD Capes, 198 in ProQuest, 2 in the National Council of Justice, 8 in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 288 in the Brazilian Ministry of Health, 2,490 in the World Health Organization, 5 in the Pan American Health Organization, 29 in the Canadian Medical Association, 416 in CorrectCare, 26 in the National Health and Medical Research Council, 181 in CONITEC, and 22 in the Guidelines Internacional Network. Of the 1,969 records screened, 1,909 records were excluded because they did not answer research question. Sixty records sought for retrieval; 58 records were not retrieved. One document was suggested during peer review of this scoping review. In the end, 3 records assessed for eligibility: 2 Reports were assessed for eligibility during screening and 1 report assessed for eligibility during peer review.

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection process for a scoping review of clinical protocols and guidelines for hypertension and diabetes for incarcerated populations. Adapted from the PRISMA-ScR flowchart (17). Abbreviations: BDTD, Brazilian Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations; CONITEC, The National Commission for the Incorporation of Technologies in the Unified Health System.

Return to Article

Figure 2. Scores for the adequacy of guidelines included in a scoping review of clinical protocols and guidelines for hypertension and diabetes for incarcerated populations according to AGREE II domains. Domain scores for each document were calculated as percentages: (obtained score − minimum possible score) divided by (maximum possible score − minimum possible score). The higher the score, the better the adequacy. Abbreviation: AGREE II, Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.

Return to Article

Top