Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33163540›Full record

ArticleBurns & trauma2020

Ensuring that the outcome domains proposed for use in burns research are relevant to adult burn patients: a systematic review of qualitative research evidence.

Jonathan Mathers, Naiem Moiemen, Amy Bamford, Fay Gardiner, Joanne Tarver

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Burns & trauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The Short- and Long-Term Outcome Priorities of a Western Australian Adult Burn Population.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2024
    Article
  3. Working Towards Holistic Scar Assessment and Improved Shared Decision Making in Global Burn Care.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan MathersInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Naiem MoiemenThe Scar Free Foundation Centre for Burns Research, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0836-5138
Amy BamfordThe Scar Free Foundation Centre for Burns Research, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Fay GardinerThe Scar Free Foundation Centre for Burns Research, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2WB, UK.
Joanne TarverSchool of Life & Health Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK.
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBAston University · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere have been several attempts to define core outcome domains for use in research focused on adult burns. Some have been based in expert opinion, whilst others have used primary qualitative research to understand patients' perspectives on outcomes. To date there has not been a systematic review of qualitative research in burns to identify a comprehensive list of patient-centred outcome domains. We therefore conducted a systematic review of qualitative research studies in adult burns.

methodsWe searched multiple databases for English-language, peer-reviewed, qualitative research papers. We used search strategies devised using the SPIDER tool for qualitative synthesis. Our review utilized an iterative three-step approach: (1) outcome-focused coding; (2) development of descriptive accounts of outcome-relevant issues; and (3) revisiting studies and the broader theoretical literature in order to frame the review findings.

resultsForty-one articles were included. We categorized papers according to their primary focus. The category with the most papers was adaptation to life following burn injury (n = 13). We defined 19 outcome domains across the 41 articles: (1) sense of self; (2) emotional and psychological morbidity; (3) sensory; (4) scarring and scar characteristics; (5) impact on relationships; (6) mobility and range of joint motion; (7) work; (8) activities of daily living and self-care; (9) treatment burden; (10) engagement in activities; (11) wound healing and infection; (12) other physical manifestations; (13) financial impact; (14) impact on spouses and family members; (15) analgesia and side effects; (16) cognitive skills; (17) length of hospital stay; (18) access to healthcare; and (19) speech and communication. We suggest that sense of self is a core concern for patients that, to date, has not been clearly conceptualized in the burns outcome domain literature.

conclusionsThis outcome domain framework identifies domains that are not covered in previous attempts to outline core outcome domains for adult burn research. It does so with reference to existing theoretical perspectives from the sociology and psychology of medicine. We propose that this framework can be used as a basis to ensure that outcome assessment is patient-centred. Sense of self requires further consideration as a core outcome domain.

Indexed as

Adult burnsOutcome domainsQualitative researchSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33163540
PMCPMC7603423
OpenAlexW3097442132

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.