Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28216723›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of dermatology

Future Research Priorities for Morbidity Control of Lymphedema.

S R Narahari, Madhur Guruprasad Aggithaya, Christine Moffatt, T J Ryan, Vaughan Keeley, B Vijaya, P Rajendran, S B Karalam, S Rajagopala, N K Kumar and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

S R NarahariInstitute of Applied Dermatology, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India.
Madhur Guruprasad AggithayaInstitute of Applied Dermatology, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India.
Christine MoffattInternational Lymphoedema Framework, London; Division of Nursing and Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
T J RyanDepartment of Dermatology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Vaughan KeeleyDepartment of Lymphedema, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, United Kingdom.
B VijayaDepartment of Pathology, JSS Medical College, JSS University, Mysore, Karnataka, India.
P RajendranDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India.
S B KaralamDepartment of R&D, Oushadhi Ltd, Thrissur, Kerala, India.
S RajagopalaDepartment of Kaumarabhritya, Institute for Postgraduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India.
N K KumarDr. TMA Pai Endowment Chair, Manipal University, Indian Council for Medical Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
K S BoseInstitute of Applied Dermatology, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India.
K V SushmaInstitute of Applied Dermatology, Central University of Kerala, Kasaragod, Kerala, India.
Institute of Applied Dermatology · INCentral University of Kerala · INChurchill Hospital · GBFramework · GBGujarat Ayurved University · INIndian Council of Medical Research · INJSS Academy of Higher Education and Research · INRoyal Derby Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovation in the treatment of lower extremity lymphedema has received low priority from the governments and pharmaceutical industry. Advancing lymphedema is irreversible and initiates fibrosis in the dermis, reactive changes in the epidermis and subcutis. Most medical treatments offered for lymphedema are either too demanding with a less than satisfactory response or patients have low concordance due to complex schedules. A priority setting partnership (PSP) was established to decide on the future priorities in lymphedema research.

methodsA table of abstracts following a literature search was published in workshop website. Stake holders were requested to upload their priorities. Their questions were listed, randomized, and sent to lymphologists for ranking. High ranked ten research priorities, obtained through median score, were presented in final prioritization work shop attended by invited stake holders. A free medical camp was organized during workshop to understand patients' priorities.

resultsOne hundred research priorities were selected from priorities uploaded to website. Ten priorities were short listed through a peer review process involving 12 lymphologists, for final discussion. They were related to simplification of integrative treatment for lymphedema, cellular changes in lymphedema and mechanisms of its reversal, eliminating bacterial entry lesions to reduce cellulitis episodes, exploring evidence for therapies in traditional medicine, improving patient concordance to compression therapy, epidemiology of lymphatic filariasis (LF), and economic benefit of integrative treatments of lymphedema.

conclusionA robust research priority setting process, organized as described in James Lind Alliance guidebook, identified seven priority areas to achieve effective morbidity control of lymphedema including LF. All stake holders including Department of Health Research, Government of India, participated in the PSP.

Indexed as

Ayurvedaintegrative medicinelymphatic filariasislymphedemapriority setting partnershipYoga

Identifiers

PMID28216723
PMCPMC5286751
OpenAlexW2569375928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.