Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34764140›Full record

ArticleBMJ open diabetes research & care2021

Establishing the national top 10 priority research questions to improve diabetes-related foot health and disease: a Delphi study of Australian stakeholders.

Byron M Perrin, Anita Raspovic, Cylie M Williams, Stephen M Twigg, Jonathan Golledge, Emma J Hamilton, Anna Crawford, Carol Hargreaves, Jaap J van Netten, Nytasha Purcell and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Byron M PerrinLa Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia b.perrin@latrobe.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4616-3510
Anita RaspovicDiscipline of Podiatry, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Cylie M WilliamsSchool of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
Stephen M TwiggDiabetes Feet Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jonathan GolledgeDiabetes Feet Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5779-8848
Emma J HamiltonDepartment of Endocrinology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Anna CrawfordDiabetes Centre, High Risk Foot Service, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Carol HargreavesConsumer representative, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jaap J van NettenRehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6420-6046
Nytasha PurcellDiabetes Feet Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Peter A LazzariniDiabetes Feet Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8235-7964
La Trobe University · AUAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLMonash University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUTownsville Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDiabetes-related foot disease is a large cause of the global disease burden yet receives very little research funding to address this large burden. To help address this gap, it is recommended to first identify the consensus priority research questions of relevant stakeholders, yet this has not been performed for diabetes-related foot disease. The aim of this study was to determine the national top 10 priority research questions for diabetes-related foot health and disease from relevant Australian stakeholders. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsA modified three-round Delphi online survey design was used to seek opinions from relevant Australian stakeholders including those with diabetes or diabetes-related foot disease or their carers (consumers), health professionals, researchers and industry. Participants were recruited via multiple public invitations and invited to propose three research questions of most importance to them (Round 1), prioritize their 10 most important questions from all proposed questions (Round 2), and then rank questions in order of importance (Round 3).

resultsAfter Round 1, a total of 226 unique questions were proposed by 210 participants (including 121 health professionals and 72 consumers). Of those participants, 95 completed Round 2 and 69 completed Round 3. The top 10 priority research questions covered a range of topics, including health economics, peripheral neuropathy, education, infection, technology, exercise, and nutrition. Consumers prioritized peripheral neuropathy and prevention-related questions. Health professionals prioritized management-related questions including Australia's First Peoples foot health, health economics and infection questions.

conclusionsThese priority research questions should guide future national research agendas, funding and projects to improve diabetes-related foot disease burdens in Australia and globally. Future research should focus on consumer priority research questions to improve the burden of diabetes-related foot disease on patients and nations. Further research should also investigate reasons for different priorities between consumers and health professionals.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic FootAustraliaConsensusDelphi TechniqueHealth PersonnelHumansAustraliadiabetic footresearch

Identifiers

PMID34764140
PMCPMC8587617
OpenAlexW3212734400

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.