ArticleBMJ open2019
The James Lind Alliance process approach: scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07110779 (Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Telenursing in Coronary Artery Disease: Randomized Clinical Trial and Patient Collaboration
Who cites it
57 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying Common Patient-Oriented Priorities for Child and Adolescent Health Research and Care: A Systematic Review of Priority Setting Partnerships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce infections in patients with hematological malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Blood advances · 2023Pooled it
- Closing the rural diabetes research gap: a case for coordinated international collaboration.Global health action · 2026Article
- Improving Medication Management in Indonesian Aged Care Homes: Research Priority Setting With Stakeholders.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Identifying research priorities in adult intensive care in the United Kingdom: Results from a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2026Article
- Perceived inequalities and cultural inclusivity in UK Breast Cancer Information and Care: a mixed method study.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Towards patient-centered research in pregnancy-associated breast cancer: creating a science agenda through a priority-setting-partnership.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Co-creating an action to promote health literacy among parents with immigrant backgrounds.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Approaches for community intervention and research priority setting to reduce health inequalities: a scoping review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Women's Cardiovascular Health and Cardiac Rehabilitation: a Priority-setting Partnership.CJC open · 2026Article
- The Monash learning health system maturity matrix: codesign of a tool to measure and guide improvement in complex health system behaviour.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Identifying local priorities for research with linked routine data: an online workshop method.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- A participatory qualitative study exploring prioritization of climate change and health research among women in Indonesia and Malaysia.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Clinical guidelines for complex extremity war wound management: update and consensus using a mixed-method approach.BJS open · 2025Article
- Patients' research priorities and participation in primary ciliary dyskinesia research.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
- Engaging longitudinal cohort participants in a research priority setting process for the Raine Study.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Mapping the future: identifying research priorities in rheumatoid arthritis with the James Lind Alliance approach.BMC rheumatology · 2025Article
- Article
- Research priorities for faecal incontinence in adults: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarise study descriptions of the James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to the priority setting partnership (PSP) process and how this process is used to identify uncertainties and to develop lists of top 10 priorities.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: The Embase, Medline (Ovid), PubMed, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library as of October 2018. STUDY SELECTION: All studies reporting the use of JLA process steps and the development of a list of top 10 priorities, with adult participants aged 18 years. DATA EXTRACTION: A data extraction sheet was created to collect demographic details, study aims, sample and patient group details, PSP details (eg, stakeholders), lists of top 10 priorities, descriptions of JLA facilitator roles and the PSP stages followed. Individual and comparative appraisals were discussed among the scoping review authors until agreement was reached.
resultsDatabase searches yielded 431 potentially relevant studies published in 2010-2018, of which 37 met the inclusion criteria. JLA process participants were patients, carers and clinicians, aged 18 years, who had experience with the study-relevant diagnoses. All studies reported having a steering group, although partners and stakeholders were described differently across studies. The number of JLA PSP process steps varied from four to eight. Uncertainties were typically collected via an online survey hosted on, or linked to, the PSP website. The number of submitted uncertainties varied across studies, from 323 submitted by 58 participants to 8227 submitted by 2587 participants.
conclusionsJLA-based PSP makes a useful contribution to identifying research questions. Through this process, patients, carers and clinicians work together to identify and prioritise unanswered uncertainties. However, representation of those with different health conditions depends on their having the capacity and resources to participate. No studies reported difficulties in developing their top 10 priorities.
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.