Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32537915›Full record

ArticleInternational wound journal2020

Patient involvement in surgical wound care research: A scoping review.

Rachel Muir, Joan Julie Carlini, Emma Louise Harbeck, Brigid Mary Gillespie, Haitham Wadah Tuffaha, Rachel Michell Walker, Elizabeth Catherine McInnes, Sharon Leanne Latimer, Frances Fengzhi Lin, Josh Michael Pearcy and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International wound journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Research Buddy partnership in a MD-PhD program: lessons learned.Research involvement and engagement · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. How Successful Is AI in Developing Postsurgical Wound Care Education Material?Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Rachel MuirSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Joan Julie CarliniDepartment of Marketing, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Emma Louise HarbeckSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6554-2658
Brigid Mary GillespieSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Haitham Wadah TuffahaMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Rachel Michell WalkerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Elizabeth Catherine McInnesDivision of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sharon Leanne LatimerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2704-150X
Frances Fengzhi LinMenzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Josh Michael PearcySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Wendy Pearl ChaboyerSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-7814
Griffith University · AUPrincess Alexandra Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active involvement of patients in planning, conducting, and disseminating research has been adopted by many organisations internationally, but the extent to which this occurs in surgical wound care is not evident. This scoping review aimed to identify how patients have been involved in surgical wound care research and the quality of its reporting. Full-text studies focused on preoperative and postoperative surgical wound care in the acute care setting, published in English between 2004 and 2019, were included in the review. Screening, data charting, and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently, adjudicated by a third, and then reviewed by five others. Thematic analysis synthesised the findings. Of the eight included studies, seven explained the methods for patient involvement and five described aims related to patient involvement and commented on patient involvement in the discussion. None met all of the quality assessment criteria. Three themes emerged: involvement in modifying and refining research processes, connecting and balancing expert and patient views, and sharing personal insights. Recommendations to improve patient involvement in surgical wounds research include the following: using framework and tools to inform future research; training researcher and patients in their respective research roles; and ongoing monitoring of patient involvement.

Indexed as

Surgical WoundCritical CareHumansPatient Participationconsumer involvementpatient participationresearchsurgical woundssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32537915
PMCPMC7948725
OpenAlexW3034711714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.