ArticleSAGE open medicine2019
Engaging patients and caregivers in establishing research priorities for aortic dissection.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research priorities in the field of interprofessional healthcare education: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Outcomes after cardiac rehabilitation in patients following repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm or dissection: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Research priorities to prevent and treat diabetic foot ulcers-A digital James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to establish the top 10 research uncertainties in aortic dissection together with the patient organization Aortic Dissection Association Scandinavia using the James Lind Alliance concept.
methodsA pilot survey aiming to identify uncertainties sent to 12 patients was found to have high content validity (scale content validity index = 0.91). An online version of the survey was thereafter sent to 30 patients in Aortic Dissection Association Scandinavia and 45 caregivers in the field of aortic dissection. Research uncertainties of aortic dissection were gathered, collated and processed.
resultsTogether with research priorities retrieved from five different current guidelines, 94 uncertainties were expressed. A shortlist of 24 uncertainties remained after processing for the final workshop. After the priority-setting process, using facilitated group format technique, the ranked final top 10 research uncertainties included diagnostic tests for aortic dissection; patient information and care continuity; quality of life; endovascular and medical treatment; surgical complications; rehabilitation; psychological consequences; self-care; and how to improve prognosis.
conclusionThese ranked top 10 important research priorities may be used to justify specific research in aortic dissection and to inform healthcare research funding decisions.
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.