ArticleBone & joint research2017
Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology: A qualitative study.
Article in Bone & joint research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the gap: understanding and enhancing the collaborative relationship between spine clinicians and researchers of the International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine (ISSLS).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- The Benefit of an Umbrella Protocol: Reducing Challenges in Orthopedic Oncology Research.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Towards a unified approach for multiple myeloma care in Kenya - proceedings of the Inaugural Multiple Myeloma Congress.The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
- The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Orthopaedic Oncology - A Narrative Review of Current Concepts.Journal of bone and joint infection · 2019Review
- Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAs tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration.
methodsAll surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation.
resultsThe 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination.
conclusionsOrthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology.
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.