Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28485177›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative effectiveness research2017

Querying stakeholders to inform comparative effectiveness research.

Yoon Duk Hong, Daisuke Goto, C Daniel Mullins

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative effectiveness research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Yoon Duk HongPharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Daisuke GotoPharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
C Daniel MullinsPharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

PATIENTS: PATient-centered Involvement in Evaluating effectivNess of TreatmentR24HS022135 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MULLINS, C. DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$4.9M
AHRQ HHS R24 HS022135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the growing recognition of the value of stakeholder engagement in research, there is limited guidance on effectively eliciting stakeholder views during the comparative effectiveness research (CER) process. This article outlines the potential role of each stakeholder (patient, provider, policymaker and payer) throughout the CER process and provides examples of practical questions that researchers can ask the four primary stakeholder groups at each step of the CER process. This guide aims to assist in the development of meaningful stakeholder-researcher shared decision-making to incorporate stakeholder views in the design, conduct and dissemination of patient-centered CER.

Indexed as

comparative effectiveness researchstakeholder engagementstakeholder views

Identifiers

PMID28485177
PMCPMC5680160

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.