Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26099213›Full record

ReviewSpinal cord2015

Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part I: rapid review of SCI prioritisation literature.

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

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

8citing papers in PubMed

2.2field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

Research priorities to enhance life for people with spinal cord injury: a Swedish priority setting partnership.Spinal cord · 2023
Review
Cervical Spine Trauma in East Africa: Presentation, Treatment, and Mortality.International journal of spine surgery · 2021
Article
Needs, priorities, and attitudes of individuals with spinal cord injury toward nerve stimulation devices for bladder and bowel function: a survey.Spinal cord · 2020
Article
Ambulances are for emergencies: shifting attitudes through a research-informed behaviour change campaign.Health research policy and systems · 2019
Article
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 · 2018
Article
Improving care standards for patients with spinal trauma combining a modified e-Delphi process and stakeholder interviews: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2017
Observational
Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part II: Background to a research strategy.Spinal cord · 2015
Review
Developing a spinal cord injury research strategy using a structured process of evidence review and stakeholder dialogue. Part III: outcomes.Spinal cord · 2015
Article

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 W 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 & Regenerative Neuroscience, School of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.

D BrownSpinal Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

R L 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

designThis is a rapid evidence review.

objectivesThe objective of this study was to gain an overview of the volume, nature and findings of studies regarding priorities for spinal cord injury (SCI) research.

settingA worldwide literature search was conducted.

methodsSix medical literature databases and Google Scholar were searched for reviews in which the primary aim was to identify SCI research priorities.

resultsTwo systematic reviews were identified-one of quantitative and one of qualitative studies. The quality of the reviews was variable. Collectively, the reviews identified 31 primary studies; 24 quantitative studies totalling 5262 participants and 7 qualitative studies totalling 120 participants. Despite the difference in research paradigms, there was convergence in review findings in the areas of body impairments and relationships. The vast majority of literature within the reviews focused on the SCI patient perspective.

conclusionThe reviews inform specific research topics and highlight other important research considerations, most notably those pertaining to SCI patients' perspectives on quality of life, which may be of use in determining meaningful research outcome measures. The views of other SCI research stakeholders such as researchers, clinicians, policymakers, funders and carers would help shape a bigger picture of SCI research priorities, ultimately optimising research outputs and translation into clinical practice and health policy change. Review findings informed subsequent activities in developing a regional SCI research strategy, as described in two companion papers. SPONSORSHIP: This project was funded by the Victorian Transport Accident Commission and the Australian and New Zealand SCI Network.

Indexed as

Research DesignSpinal Cord InjuriesBiomedical ResearchHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID26099213

DOI10.1038/sc.2015.85

OpenAlexW869977901

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.