Article Text

Protocol
Personal strategies to reduce the effects of landscape fire smoke on asthma-related outcomes: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Tesfalidet Beyene1,2,
  2. Peter G Gibson1,2,3,
  3. VE Murphy1,2,
  4. Megan E Jensen1,2,
  5. Vanessa M McDonald2,3,4
  1. 1School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
  2. 2Asthma and Breathing Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
  3. 3Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
  4. 4School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Prof Vanessa M McDonald; Vanessa.McDonald{at}newcastle.edu.au

Abstract

Introduction Landscape fire smoke (LFS) contains several hazardous air pollutants that are known to be detrimental to human health. People with asthma are more vulnerable to the health impact of LFS than general populations. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of personal strategies to reduce the effect of LFS on asthma-related outcomes.

Methods and analysis We will electronically search databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register to identify eligible articles for the review. Screening of search results and data extraction from included studies will be completed by two independent reviewers. The risk of bias (RoB 2) will be assessed using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomised Studies for observational studies, the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the RoB 2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-RCTs. A random-effect meta-analysis will be performed to determine the pooled summary of findings of the included studies. If meta-analysis is not possible, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. Findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

Ethics and dissemination This study will synthesise the available evidence obtained from published studies and as such, no ethical approval is required. The review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022341120.

  • Asthma
  • Respiratory infections
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

Footnotes

  • Twitter @Tesfalidetlove ⁩, @DrMeganEJensen, @nessmcd

  • Contributors All authors were involved in the conception of the study question. TB developed the search strategy, wrote and prepared the protocol. PGG, VMur, MEJ and VMcD revised the protocol. All authors read and revised the protocol and consented to the publication of the article.

  • Funding This work is supported by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care Medical Research Futures Fund

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement A consumer reference group was conducted and people with asthma identified the need to effective stategies to reduce the effects of LFS.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.