Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27580592›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

The respiratory research agenda in primary care in Portugal: a Delphi study.

Vera Araújo, Pedro M Teixeira, John Yaphe, Jaime Correia de Sousa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Establishing research priorities for the Respiratory Therapy profession in Canada: A modified Delphi study.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. A Pilot Study on a Nurse Rehabilitation Program: Could It Be Applied to COVID-19 Patients?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Vera AraújoSchool of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Pedro M TeixeiraICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal. teixeira.pms@gmail.com.
John YapheICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal.
Jaime Correia de SousaICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory, Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057, Braga, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA research agenda can help to stimulate and guide research. The International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG) published a Research Needs Statement (RNS) in 2010 in which 145 research questions were identified. In 2012, priorities for respiratory research were established, based on these questions. To date, there has been no statement on primary care respiratory research needs in Portugal. The aim of the study was to develop a national consensus on research priorities in respiratory diseases in primary care in Portugal and to assess the applicability of the priorities for respiratory research set by the IPCRG.

methodWe conducted a Delphi study by electronic mail with a panel of experts on respiratory disease from primary and secondary care in Portugal. In the first round, the research needs in respiratory disease in Portugal were identified. In the second round, 196 research questions in six disease areas, derived from the first round and from the IPCRG Respiratory needs statement, were prioritised on a five-point Likert-type scale. In the third round, the questions were prioritized again with feed-back provided on the median scores for each item in the second round. Consensus was considered to have been reached when 80 % of the participants gave a score of 4 or 5 out of five on a given item.

resultsThe 40 experts identified 121 respiratory research questions in Round 1 and expressed their views on 196 questions in Rounds 2 and 3. Twelve research questions (6 %) reached consensus. There were five questions in the asthma domain on early diagnosis, pulmonary function tests, the use of inhalers, and adherence to treatment. There were four questions in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease domain on vaccinations, on routine monitoring and evaluation of treatment, on diagnosis, and on adherence to treatments. There was one question in the smoking domain on the effects of brief counselling. There were two questions on respiratory tract infections on the treatment of children and on the prescription of antibiotics. An additional 23 research questions (12 %) achieved consensus between 75 and 79 %.

conclusionThe results reflect the Portuguese reality in response the international agenda for research on respiratory diseases published by the IPCRG. They can support the development of future respiratory disease research in Portugal.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPrimary Health CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsConsensusDelphi TechniqueDirective CounselingHealth PrioritiesHumansNebulizers and VaporizersPatient CompliancePortugalRespiratory Tract DiseasesSmokingVaccinationAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID27580592
PMCPMC5006266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.