Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26077917›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Rheumatology2015

Setting the research agenda for improving health care in musculoskeletal disorders.

Rachelle Buchbinder, Chris Maher, Ian A Harris

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Rheumatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachelle BuchbinderMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute and Monash University, Suite 41 Cabrini Medical Centre, 183 Wattletree Road, Malvern, VIC 3144, Australia.
Chris MaherThe George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, GPO Box 5389, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia.
Ian A HarrisWhitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Level 2, 1 Campbell Street, Liverpool, NSW 2170, Australia.
George Institute for Global Health · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite a substantial contribution to the global burden of disease, musculoskeletal conditions are under-represented in clinical research, and that which is performed is often wasteful and lacking clinical relevance. Even clinically relevant musculoskeletal research might not lead to timely or adequate changes in clinical practice and associated improvements in patient outcomes. The formulation of clinical recommendations alone is usually insufficient to bring about changes in practice patterns. Research exploring how to improve the translation of evidence-based recommendations into practice, as well as the identification and removal of barriers to practice change, is necessary in order for the promise of musculoskeletal research to be realized in improved health outcomes. These goals can be achieved by improvements in the coordination of research activities, the resourcing and allocation of funding, and the involvement of clinicians and patients.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID26077917
OpenAlexW1822454441

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.