ReviewCJEM2021
Optimizing collaborative relationships in emergency medicine research.
Review in CJEM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) 2020 Academic Symposium Panel was to present recommendations for collaboration on (1) writing a grant application; (2) conducting a study; (3) writing an abstract; and (4) writing a manuscript.
methodsWe assembled an expert panel of eight experienced emergency medicine clinician scientists from across Canada. Panel members performed literature searches for each of the four topics. Draft recommendations were developed and refined in an iterative fashion by panel members. We solicited external feedback on the draft recommendations online from identified researchers known to CAEP and in person at the Network of Canadian Emergency Researchers meeting in February 2020. We obtained additional feedback during an online symposium presentation on October 15th, 2020, open to all members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians.
resultsFour sets of recommendations were established for each component including: 14 for writing a grant application including relevant timelines; 23 for conducting a study; 13 for writing an abstract; and 18 for writing a manuscript. Forming a strong team, including patients, appropriate methodologists, content experts and a mix of senior and junior investigators, establishing and following clear timelines, and proactive communications were common themes.
conclusionsWe offer recommendations for research collaboration for (1) writing a grant, (2) conducting a study, (3) writing an abstract, and (4) writing a manuscript. We believe these recommendations will help to improve the science, improve grant success, and improve the impact of the abstracts and manuscripts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33599957What 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.