Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28856514›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology.

Patricia Jacqueline Schneider, Nathan Evaniew, Paula McKay, Michelle Ghert

Open access · bronzeAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Communication in surgical decision-making while managing metastatic bone disease: matching patient expectations with surgical goals.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Statistical Fragility of Surgical and Procedural Clinical Trials in Orthopaedic Oncology.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2020
    Article
  18. Defining massive rotator cuff tears: a Delphi consensus study.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia Jacqueline SchneiderDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Nathan EvaniewDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, 711 Concession Street, B3 169A, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada.
Paula McKayDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Michelle GhertDepartment of Surgery, McMaster University, 711 Concession Street, B3 169A, Hamilton, ON, L8V 5C2, Canada. ghert@hhsc.ca.
Impact · CAJuravinski Cancer Centre · CAMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.

methodsA three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.

resultsA total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?

conclusionsThe results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueOrthopedic ProceduresBiomedical ResearchConsensusHealth PrioritiesHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansNeeds AssessmentOrganizational ObjectivesOrthopedicsProcess Assessment, Health CareSurgical Oncology

Identifiers

PMID28856514
PMCPMC5670064
OpenAlexW2753375198

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.