Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21895902›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013

The Cochrane Library review titles that are important to users of health care, a Cochrane Consumer Network project.

Janet L Wale, María Belizán, Jane Nadel, Claire Jeffrey, Sita L Vij

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. There are some big changes at Health Expectations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2013
    Article
  4. Review
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

5 authors.

Janet L WaleCochrane Consumer Network, Australia, South Africa, United States of America, South Africa, Germany.
María Belizán
Jane Nadel
Claire Jeffrey
Sita L Vij

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Cochrane Consumer Network is an internet-based community of international users of health care contributing to the work of The Cochrane Collaboration, whose mission is to inform healthcare decision making through development of systematic reviews of best evidence on healthcare interventions.

objectiveTo prioritize existing review titles listed on The Cochrane Library from a healthcare user perspective, with particular emphasis on patients, carers and health consumers.

designAn online survey was developed and after piloting was made available internationally. The broad dissemination strategy targeted Consumer Network members and Cochrane Review Group editorial staff to identify champions who notified patient support groups and participated in snowballing. The first part of the survey defined criteria that could be applied to review titles and asked survey respondents to rank them. The second part asked respondents to select a health area and prioritize review titles that were of importance to them. Each health area corresponded to a Cochrane Review Group. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sufficient responses were obtained from 522 valid responses to prioritize review topics in 19 health areas. A total of 321 respondents completed the titles assessment. The types of prioritized interventions were determined by the health area. An important observation was the emphasis on lifestyle and non-medication therapies in many of the included health areas. The clearest exception to this broad observation was where acute care is required such as antibiotics for acute respiratory tract and HIV-associated infections and for cardiac conditions. For some cancers, advanced cancer interventions were prioritized. The most important criteria were for the title to convey a clear meaning and the title conveyed that the review would have an impact on health and well-being. The least important criteria were that the topic was newsworthy or prioritized in the healthcare system.

conclusionThis project was able to identify priority Cochrane review topics for users of health care in 19 of the 50 areas of health care covered by The Cochrane Collaboration. Reviews addressing lifestyle and non-medical interventions were strongly represented in the prioritized review titles. These findings highlight the importance of developing readable, informative lay summaries to support evidence-based decision making by healthcare users.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAdultData CollectionEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMiddle Agedconsumers in researchhealth consumer networkinglifestyle and non-medical interventionsprioritization of synthesized evidence topics

Identifiers

PMID21895902
PMCPMC5060687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.