Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31753886›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Identifying and prioritising unanswered research questions for people with hyperacusis: James Lind Alliance Hyperacusis Priority Setting Partnership.

Kathryn Fackrell, Linda Stratmann, Veronica Kennedy, Carol MacDonald, Hilary Hodgson, Nic Wray, Carolyn Farrell, Mike Meadows, Jacqueline Sheldrake, Peter Byrom and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How auditory processing influences the autistic profile: A review.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 'It's Powerful' The impact of involving children and young people in developing paediatric research agendas: A qualitative interview study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Hyperacusis: a mini review].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn FackrellNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK kathryn.fackrell@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6529-8643
Linda StratmannNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Veronica KennedyDepartment of Paediatric Audiology, Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK.
Carol MacDonaldDepartment of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Hilary HodgsonNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nic WrayNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Carolyn FarrellNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mike MeadowsNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jacqueline SheldrakeThe Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Centre, London, UK.
Peter ByromPeter Byrom Audiology, Sheffield, UK.
David M BaguleyNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0767-0723
Rosie KentishNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Sarah ChapmanCochrane UK, Oxford, UK.
Josephine MarriageChildren's Hearing Evaluation & Amplification Resource, London, UK.
John PhillipsDepartment of Otolaryngology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust, Norwich, UK.
Tracey PollardAction on Hearing Loss, London, UK.
Helen HenshawNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0547-4403
Toto A GronlundThe James Lind Alliance, National Institute of Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Southampton, UK.
Derek J HoareNational Institute of Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8768-1392
University of Nottingham · GBBolton NHS Foundation Trust · GBCochrane · GBNIHR Evaluation Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal National Institute for Deaf People · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2018–11-ST2-016Department of Health PDF-2018–11-ST2-003MRF_ MRF-049-0002-RG-BSAUD
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine research priorities in hyperacusis that key stakeholders agree are the most important. DESIGN/

settingA priority setting partnership using two international surveys, and a UK prioritisation workshop, adhering to the six-staged methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance.

participantsPeople with lived experience of hyperacusis, parents/carers, family and friends, educational professionals and healthcare professionals who support and/or treat adults and children who experience hyperacusis, including but not limited to surgeons, audiologists, psychologists and hearing therapists.

methodsThe priority setting partnership was conducted from August 2017 to July 2018. An international identification survey asked respondents to submit any questions/uncertainties about hyperacusis. Uncertainties were categorised, refined and rephrased into representative indicative questions using thematic analysis techniques. These questions were verified as 'unanswered' through searches of current evidence. A second international survey asked respondents to vote for their top 10 priority questions. A shortlist of questions that represented votes from all stakeholder groups was prioritised into a top 10 at the final prioritisation workshop (UK).

resultsIn the identification survey, 312 respondents submitted 2730 uncertainties. Of those uncertainties, 593 were removed as out of scope, and the remaining were refined into 85 indicative questions. None of the indicative questions had already been answered in research. The second survey collected votes from 327 respondents, which resulted in a shortlist of 28 representative questions for the final workshop. Consensus was reached on the top 10 priorities for future research, including identifying causes and underlying mechanisms, effective management and training for healthcare professionals.

conclusionsThese priorities were identified and shaped by people with lived experience, parents/carers and healthcare professionals, and as such are an essential resource for directing future research in hyperacusis. Researchers and funders should focus on addressing these priorities.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesHyperacusisAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomedical ResearchChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung AdultassessmenthyperacusisJames Lind Alliancemanagementresearch

Identifiers

PMID31753886
PMCPMC6886978
OpenAlexW2991236493

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.