Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30474560›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2018

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Caroline Struthers, Anneliese Synnot, Jack Nunn, Sophie Hill, Heather Goodare, Jacqui Morris, Chris Watts, Richard Morley

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Patients' perspectives on the relevance of biosimilars' outcomes in oncology: qualitative study with nominal group technique.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. The benefits, challenges, and best practice for patient and public involvement in evidence synthesis: A systematic review and thematic synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Adapting a codesign process with young people to prioritize outcomes for a systematic review of interventions to prevent self-harm and suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Beyond the Meeting: Patient and Public Involvement Practices and Barriers to Inclusive Participation in Stroke Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Frameworks for Action: A Scoping Review of Organisational Patient Engagement Models in Healthcare.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Alex PollockNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. alex.pollock@gcu.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4941-7985
Pauline CampbellNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
Caroline StruthersEQUATOR Network, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
Anneliese SynnotCochrane Consumers and Communication, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Jack NunnCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Sophie HillCochrane Consumers and Communication, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Kingsbury Drive, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Heather Goodare, Edinburgh, UK.
Jacqui MorrisSchool of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee, DD1 4HJ, UK.
Chris WattsCochrane Learning and Support Department, Cochrane Central Executive, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK.
Richard MorleyCochrane Consumer Network, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK.

Funding

Cochrane Central Executive n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews.

methodsWe carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review.

resultsWe included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/

conclusionWe identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .

Indexed as

Research DesignStakeholder ParticipationSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPatientsConsumerInvolvementPatientPublicScoping reviewStakeholderSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30474560
PMCPMC6260873

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.