ArticleSpinal cord2015
Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part III: outcomes.
Article in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Work and SCI: a pilot randomized controlled study of an online resource for job-seekers with spinal cord dysfunction.Spinal cord · 2019Trial
- Research priorities to enhance life for people with spinal cord injury: a Swedish priority setting partnership.Spinal cord · 2023Review
- Article
- How Can Policymakers be Encouraged to Support People With Spinal Cord Injury-Scoping Review.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Ambulances are for emergencies: shifting attitudes through a research-informed behaviour change campaign.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- It is a marathon rather than a sprint: an initial exploration of unmet needs and support preferences of caregivers of children with SCI.Spinal cord · 2018Article
- Facilitators and Barriers to International Collaboration in Spinal Cord Injury: Results from a Survey of Clinicians and Researchers.Journal of neurotrauma · 2018Article
- Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 14 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designFocus Group.
objectivesTo develop a unified, regional spinal cord injury (SCI) research strategy for Australia and New Zealand.
settingAustralia.
methodsA 1-day structured stakeholder dialogue was convened in 2013 in Melbourne, Australia, by the National Trauma Research Institute in collaboration with the SCI Network of Australia and New Zealand. Twenty-three experts participated, representing local and international research, clinical, consumer, advocacy, government policy and funding perspectives. Preparatory work synthesised evidence and articulated draft principles and options as a starting point for discussion.
resultsA regional SCI research strategy was proposed, whose objectives can be summarised under four themes. (1) Collaborative networks and strategic partnerships to increase efficiency, reduce duplication, build capacity and optimise research funding. (2) Research priority setting and coordination to manage competing studies. (3) Mechanisms for greater consumer engagement in research. (4) Resources and infrastructure to further develop SCI data registries, evaluate research translation and assess alignment of research strategy with stakeholder interests. These are consistent with contemporary international SCI research strategy development activities.
conclusionThis first step in a regional SCI research strategy has articulated objectives for further development by the wider SCI research community. The initiative has also reinforced the importance of coordinated, collective action in optimising outcomes following SCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.