Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26099209›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2015

Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part II: Background to a research strategy.

P Bragge, L Piccenna, J Middleton, S Williams, G Creasey, S Dunlop, D Brown, R Gruen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

P BraggeNational Trauma Research Institute, Monash University and The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
L PiccennaNational Trauma Research Institute, Monash University and The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3895-8145
J MiddletonJohn Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
S WilliamsThe Spinal Cord Injury Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
G CreaseyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
S DunlopExperimental and Regenerative Neuroscience, School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
D BrownSpinal Research Institute, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.
R GruenMonash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The Alfred Hospital · AUAustralian Spinal Research Foundation · AUNanyang Technological University · SGStanford University · USThe University of Sydney · AUThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designLiterature review/semi-structured interviews.

objectiveTo develop a spinal cord injury (SCI) research strategy for Australia and New Zealand.

settingAustralia.

methodsThe National Trauma Research Institute Forum approach of structured evidence review and stakeholder consultation was employed. This involved gathering from published literature and stakeholder consultation the information necessary to properly consider the challenge, and synthesising this into a briefing document.

resultsA research strategy 'roadmap' was developed to define the major steps and key planning questions to consider; next, evidence from published SCI research strategy initiatives was synthesised with information from four one-on-one semi-structured interviews with key SCI research stakeholders to create a research strategy framework, articulating six key themes and associated activities for consideration. These resources, combined with a review of SCI prioritisation literature, were used to generate a list of draft principles for discussion in a structured stakeholder dialogue meeting.

conclusionThe research strategy roadmap and framework informed discussion at a structured stakeholder dialogue meeting of 23 participants representing key SCI research constituencies, results of which are published in a companion paper. These resources could also be of value in other research strategy or planning exercises. SPONSORSHIP: This project was funded by the Victorian Transport Accident Commission and the Australian and New Zealand Spinal Cord Injury Network.

Indexed as

Research DesignSpinal Cord InjuriesAustraliaBiomedical ResearchHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID26099209
OpenAlexW2412264819

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.