Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33568101›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2021

Stakeholder consensus for decision making in eye-gaze control technology for children, adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy service provision: findings from a Delphi study.

Petra Karlsson, Tom Griffiths, Michael T Clarke, Elegast Monbaliu, Kate Himmelmann, Saranda Bekteshi, Abigail Allsop, René Pereksles, Claire Galea, Margaret Wallen

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

Article in BMC neurology, 2021. 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
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Petra KarlssonCerebral Palsy Alliance Research Institute, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Frenchs Forest, PO Box 6427, Sydney, NSW, 2086, Australia. pkarlsson@cerebralpalsy.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6253-9488
Tom GriffithsCambridge University Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Michael T ClarkeDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Elegast MonbaliuKU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences Campus Bruges, Bruges, Belgium.
Kate HimmelmannDepartment of Pediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Saranda BekteshiKU Leuven - University of Leuven, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences Campus Bruges, Bruges, Belgium.
Abigail AllsopCerebral Palsy Alliance Research Institute, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Frenchs Forest, PO Box 6427, Sydney, NSW, 2086, Australia.
René PerekslesCerebral Palsy Alliance, Sydney, Australia.
Claire GaleaCerebral Palsy Alliance Research Institute, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Frenchs Forest, PO Box 6427, Sydney, NSW, 2086, Australia.
Margaret WallenSchool of Allied Health, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUCatholic University College of Bruges–Ostend · BEAustralian Catholic University · AUCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCerebral Palsy Alliance · AUUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

Perpetual Limited 00Roger Montgomery Family Fund 00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLimited research exists to guide clinical decisions about trialling, selecting, implementing and evaluating eye-gaze control technology. This paper reports on the outcomes of a Delphi study that was conducted to build international stakeholder consensus to inform decision making about trialling and implementing eye-gaze control technology with people with cerebral palsy.

methodsA three-round online Delphi survey was conducted. In Round 1, 126 stakeholders responded to questions identified through an international stakeholder Advisory Panel and systematic reviews. In Round 2, 63 respondents rated the importance of 200 statements generated by in Round 1. In Round 3, 41 respondents rated the importance of the 105 highest ranked statements retained from Round 2.

resultsStakeholders achieved consensus on 94 of the original 200 statements. These statements related to person factors, support networks, the environment, and technical aspects to consider during assessment, trial, implementation and follow-up. Findings reinforced the importance of an individualised approach and that information gathered from the user, their support network and professionals are central when measuring outcomes. Information required to support an application for funding was obtained.

conclusionThis Delphi study has identified issues which are unique to eye-gaze control technology and will enhance its implementation with people with cerebral palsy.

Indexed as

Cerebral PalsyClinical Decision-MakingFixation, OcularUser-Computer InterfaceAdolescentAdultChildDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyAccessibilityAssistive technologyAugmentative and alternative communicationCerebral palsyClinical decision-makingDisabilitiesEye-gaze control technology

Identifiers

PMID33568101
PMCPMC7874479
OpenAlexW3129135388

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.