Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,100Open textbooks2Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology107Genetics and Genomics95Neuroscience110Cardiovascular Medicine105Immunology90Pharmacology99Molecular Biology100Infectious Diseases102Rare and Inherited Diseases106Clinical Research98Anatomy and Physiology542Drugs and Chemicals546
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Clinical Research›Health Surveys
Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Health Surveys

Clinical Research · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-10-29 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed9 referencesApproximately 5 min read

A systematic collection of factual data pertaining to health and disease in a human population within a given geographic area.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 3 complete abstracts (927 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

A systematic collection of factual data pertaining to health and disease in a human population within a given geographic area.

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Health Survey; Survey, Health; Surveys, Health; Abortion Surveys; Abortion Survey; Survey, Abortion; Surveys, Abortion.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Surveys and Questionnaires
Narrower topics
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; Dental Health Surveys; Health Status Indicators; Mass Screening; Population Surveillance

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 685,025 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Health Surveys” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 123,250 of them (18.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 268,078 records.

Reviews account for 67,910 records (9.9%) and meta-analyses for 6,045. Randomized controlled trials number 31,973 (4.7%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 93,570 records; 2000-2009: 200,127 records; 2010-2019: 268,078 records; 2020 onward: 123,250 records93,570through 1999200,1272000-2009268,0782010-2019123,2502020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 199993,570
2000-2009200,127
2010-2019268,078
2020 onward123,250
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 9.9 percent; Meta-analyses: 0.9 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 4.7 percentReviews9.9% (67,910)Meta-analyses0.9% (6,045)Randomized controlled trials4.7% (31,973)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 685,025 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews67,9109.9%
Meta-analyses6,0450.9%
Randomized controlled trials31,9734.7%

Method: PubMed query "Health Surveys"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.

Reading the evidence in clinical research

Research methods determine how much a result can be trusted. Randomized trials guard against confounding, systematic reviews and meta-analyses combine many studies, and observational designs are valuable but can show only association. Reporting standards, trial registration and pre-specified outcomes reduce bias. When reading about a method, ask what problem it is designed to solve and which problems it does not solve.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
Extracorporeal CO2 elimination for acute exacerbation of severe COPD requiring invasive mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial (the X-COPD trial)
Karagiannidis C, Riera J, Blanco-Schweizer P, Strassmann S, Merten M, Brodie D, et al.
2026Randomized controlled trial
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 42693471 · DOI · PMC13543343
Do conventional intracerebral hemorrhage functional scores apply to mild-to-moderate hemorrhage?
Chen A, Peng J, Guo L, Zhou R
2026Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 42656267 · DOI · PMC13506375
Financial toxicity among patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jiang M, Wang F, Liu Y, Hu Q, Zhao L, Xiong Y, et al.
2026Meta-analysis
Design not recorded in structured metadata
1cc by
PMID 42661720 · DOI · PMC13518355

Extracorporeal CO2 elimination for acute exacerbation of severe COPD requiring invasive mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial (the X-COPD trial) [1]

Randomized controlled trial Karagiannidis C, Riera J, Blanco-Schweizer P, Strassmann S, Merten M, Brodie D, et al. · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
RationaleAcute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AE-COPD) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are associated with high mortality and long-term disability.
Closing excerpt
Adequately powered multicenter trials are warranted.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (290 words)

RationaleAcute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AE-COPD) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are associated with high mortality and long-term disability. Extracorporeal CO₂ removal (ECCO₂R) using modern high-capacity devices may facilitate early endotracheal extubation and reduce IMV-related complications.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether ECCO2R-facilitated early extubation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard IMV in patients with severe AE-COPD requiring IMV.MethodsAdults with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to AE-COPD requiring IMV who failed or were ineligible for extubation within 24 hours of intubation were randomized to ECCO2R or no ECCO2R. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or severe disability at day 60.Results18 patients were randomized before the trial was terminated early by the sponsor for financial reasons (planned enrollment: 192). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 0/8 ECCO2R-treated patients versus 3/9 evaluable IMV-treated patients (33%; risk difference -33%; 95% CI -65% to 6%; p = 0.21). IMV duration was shorter in the ECCO2R group (7.1 ± 2.0 vs. 24.3 ± 21.4 days; median 7.0 vs. 16.0 days; mean difference -17.2 days; p = 0.043), yielding, in a post hoc exploratory analysis, more overall device-free days at day 29 (17 ± 4 device-support-free days compared with 8 ± 7 days in the IMV group (p = 0.011)). Ventilator-associated pneumonia occurred in 0 versus 3 patients (37.5%), respectively. Sedation was discontinued earlier in the ECCO₂R group. Severe bleeding occurred in one ECCO₂R-treated patient (12.5%).ConclusionsIn this prematurely terminated trial, ECCO₂R-facilitated early extubation using a device with a capacity to eliminate more than 50% of the average CO2 production, was associated with a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Numerical trends favored ECCO2R across several secondary outcomes, although interpretation is limited by premature termination and the very small sample size. Adequately powered multicenter trials are warranted.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42693471 · DOI · PMC13543343

Do conventional intracerebral hemorrhage functional scores apply to mild-to-moderate hemorrhage? [2]

Research article Chen A, Peng J, Guo L, Zhou R · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundConventional intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) functional scores are typically developed based on clinical factors for assessing mortality risk, and their applicability in evaluating functional outcomes in patients with the specific hemorrhagic subtype of mild to moderate ICH(MTM-ICH) remains unclear.
Closing excerpt
In contrast, conventional ICH functional scores demonstrate certain limitations when assessing this specific hemorrhage subtype.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (350 words)

BackgroundConventional intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) functional scores are typically developed based on clinical factors for assessing mortality risk, and their applicability in evaluating functional outcomes in patients with the specific hemorrhagic subtype of mild to moderate ICH(MTM-ICH) remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to construct a nomogram model to predict early functional dependence in this patient population and to validate three previous general ICH functional scores.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 575 patients with MTM-ICH (GCS score ≥ 9) treated at our hospital between January 2018 and July 2025. The baseline demographic information, clinical characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Early functional dependence was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (MRS) score ≥ 3 at discharge or 30 days after ICH. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and stepwise logistic regression analyses were used to screen for risk factors for early functional dependence and construct a predictive model. The model was visualized using a nomogram, and its predictive performance was compared with three existing ICH functional scores (FUNC, ICH-GS and ICH-FOS). Internal validation of the nomogram was performed using a 10-fold cross-validation combined with bootstrap resampling.ResultsAmong 575 patients with MTM-ICH, 198 (34.4%) developed early functional dependence. LASSO and stepwise logistic regression analyses identified six independent predictors: age, admission GCS score, hematoma volume, thalamic hemorrhage, basal ganglia hemorrhage, and mechanical ventilation. The nomogram based on these factors demonstrated good calibration and superior predictive performance compared to three existing ICH functional scores (AUC = 0.856 for our nomogram, 0.579 for FUNC, 0.601 for ICH-GS, and 0.714 for ICH-FOS, respectively). The decision curve analysis further demonstrated that the model had greater net benefit than the three previous general ICH functional scores. Internal validation confirmed the model's stability and generalizability (10-fold cross-validation mean: 0.846; bootstrap-corrected C-index: 0.844).ConclusionAmong patients with MTM-ICH, advanced age, lower admission GCS score, larger hematoma volume, thalamic or basal ganglia hemorrhage, and mechanical ventilation were associated with a higher risk of early functional dependence. The nomogram developed based on these factors demonstrated high predictive performance. In contrast, conventional ICH functional scores demonstrate certain limitations when assessing this specific hemorrhage subtype.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42656267 · DOI · PMC13506375

Financial toxicity among patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]

Meta-analysis Jiang M, Wang F, Liu Y, Hu Q, Zhao L, Xiong Y, et al. · · 2026 · cited 1 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundLung cancer imposes a substantial global health burden.
Closing excerpt
Standardized longitudinal assessment and prospective evaluation of risk-stratified interventions are warranted.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (287 words)

BackgroundLung cancer imposes a substantial global health burden. Although advances in treatment have improved outcomes, increasingly prolonged and complex care may impose considerable financial pressure on patients and their families. We systematically synthesized evidence on financial toxicity (FT) and its associated factors among patients with lung cancer.MethodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched through November 2025 for observational studies evaluating FT in patients with lung cancer. Associated factors were synthesized qualitatively and mapped using a harvest plot. Random-effects models were used to pool study-specific FT proportions and mean COST-based scores. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by country income level, disease stage/treatment setting, and COST-based FT threshold. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I² statistics. Prediction intervals and leave-one-out analyses were used to evaluate variability and robustness.ResultsEighteen studies were included. The pooled proportion of patients meeting study-specific FT definitions across eight studies was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43-0.66), while the pooled mean COST-based score across ten studies was 22.91 (95% CI, 20.57-25.25). The pooled FT proportion was numerically lower in high-income than in upper-middle-income countries (0.47 vs 0.61; p = 0.171). FT proportions differed by disease stage/treatment setting (advanced/systemic treatment, 0.50; mixed/all-stage populations, 0.67; surgery-dominant populations, 0.42; p = 0.031). No difference was observed between studies using COST-based thresholds of 21-22 and 23-25 (p = 0.999). Lower income, inadequate insurance protection, employment disruption, limited savings, and greater out-of-pocket burden were recurring correlates of worse FT. Substantial heterogeneity persisted across analyses.ConclusionFT represents an important but highly context-dependent burden among patients with lung cancer. Given the substantial heterogeneity and predominantly cross-sectional evidence, the pooled estimates should be interpreted as exploratory summaries rather than universally applicable benchmarks. Standardized longitudinal assessment and prospective evaluation of risk-stratified interventions are warranted.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42661720 · DOI · PMC13518355

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study [4]
    GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study · Lancet Glob Health · 2021 · cited 2,250 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Global Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Projection of Burden through 2045: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [5]
    Teo ZL, Tham YC, Yu M, Chee ML, Rim TH, Cheung N, et al. · Ophthalmology · 2021 · cited 1,690 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study [6]
    GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study · Lancet Glob Health · 2021 · cited 919 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Hearing loss prevalence and years lived with disability, 1990-2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 [7]
    GBD 2019 Hearing Loss Collaborators · Lancet · 2021 · cited 905 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Association Between Fibrosis Stage and Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [8]
    Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Bayliss S, Hagström H, Nasr P, Schattenberg JM, et al. · Gastroenterology · 2020 · cited 809 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Estimates of the global burden of cervical cancer associated with HIV [9]
    Stelzle D, Tanaka LF, Lee KK, Ibrahim Khalil A, Baussano I, Shah ASV, et al. · Lancet Glob Health · 2021 · cited 622 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Karagiannidis C, Riera J, Blanco-Schweizer P, Strassmann S, Merten M, Brodie D, et al.. Extracorporeal CO2 elimination for acute exacerbation of severe COPD requiring invasive mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial (the X-COPD trial). . 2026. PMID 42693471 · DOI · PMC13543343
  2. Chen A, Peng J, Guo L, Zhou R. Do conventional intracerebral hemorrhage functional scores apply to mild-to-moderate hemorrhage?. . 2026. PMID 42656267 · DOI · PMC13506375
  3. Jiang M, Wang F, Liu Y, Hu Q, Zhao L, Xiong Y, et al.. Financial toxicity among patients with lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2026. PMID 42661720 · DOI · PMC13518355
  4. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021. PMID 33275949 · DOI · PMC7820391
  5. Teo ZL, Tham YC, Yu M, Chee ML, Rim TH, Cheung N, et al.. Global Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy and Projection of Burden through 2045: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. 2021. PMID 33940045 · DOI
  6. GBD 2019 Blindness and Vision Impairment Collaborators, Vision Loss Expert Group of the Global Burden of Disease Study. Trends in prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment over 30 years: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet Glob Health. 2021. PMID 33275950 · DOI · PMC7820390
  7. GBD 2019 Hearing Loss Collaborators. Hearing loss prevalence and years lived with disability, 1990-2019: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2021. PMID 33714390 · DOI · PMC7960691
  8. Taylor RS, Taylor RJ, Bayliss S, Hagström H, Nasr P, Schattenberg JM, et al.. Association Between Fibrosis Stage and Outcomes of Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology. 2020. PMID 32027911 · DOI
  9. Stelzle D, Tanaka LF, Lee KK, Ibrahim Khalil A, Baussano I, Shah ASV, et al.. Estimates of the global burden of cervical cancer associated with HIV. Lancet Glob Health. 2021. PMID 33212031 · DOI · PMC7815633

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-10-29.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Public Health SurveillanceClinical Research
  • APACHEClinical Research
  • Sentinel SurveillanceClinical Research
  • Electronic Health RecordsClinical Research
  • Patient Health QuestionnaireClinical Research
  • Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemClinical Research

All 98 articles in Clinical Research →

At a glance

685,025
PubMed records on this heading
18%
published since 2020
67,910
review articles
31,973
randomized trials
9
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-10-29; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Public Health SurveillanceClinical Research
  • APACHEClinical Research
  • Sentinel SurveillanceClinical Research
  • Electronic Health RecordsClinical Research
  • Patient Health QuestionnaireClinical Research

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Legal · Support