Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30559158›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions.

Allison M Bourne, Renea V Johnston, Sheila Cyril, Andrew M Briggs, Ornella Clavisi, Gustavo Duque, Ian A Harris, Catherine Hill, Claire Hiller, Steven J Kamper and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
12.4field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [DNVF Memorandum: Objectives and Methods of Physical Activity-Related Health Services Research].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparing an in-person workshop and a postal Delphi survey for involving health service users in health care and health research prioritization.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

20 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

Allison M BourneMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Renea V JohnstonMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Sheila CyrilMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
Andrew M BriggsSchool of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6736-3098
Ornella ClavisiMusculoskeletal Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gustavo DuqueAustralian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science (AIMSS), The University of Melbourne and Western Health, St Albans, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8126-0637
Ian A HarrisSouth Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Catherine HillDivision of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Claire HillerFaculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Steven J KamperCentre for Pain, Health and Lifestyle, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jane LatimerSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew LawsonWhitlam Orthopaedic Research Centre, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1367-6443
Chung-Wei Christine LinSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Christopher MaherSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Diana PerrimanTrauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Canberra Hospital, Woden, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Bethan L RichardsRheumatology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter SmithamDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
William John TaylorDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Sam WhittleDepartment of Rheumatology Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville, South Australia, Australia.
Rachelle BuchbinderMonash Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUCabrini University · USRoyal Adelaide Hospital · AUUNSW Sydney · AUAustralian National University · AUCurtin University · AUInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health · AUQueen Elizabeth Hospital · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDescribe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified.

designScoping review. SETTING AND POPULATION: Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted.

resultsForty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities.

conclusionsWhile many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059250.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMusculoskeletal DiseasesHumansResearchmusculoskeletal disordersrheumatologyscoping review

Identifiers

PMID30559158
PMCPMC6303563
OpenAlexW2905195911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.