Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36319906›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research and treatment2023

Identifying research priorities in breast cancer surgery: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

Shelley Potter, Katherine Fairhurst, Katherine Cowan, Simon Vincent, Ian Lewis, Ramsey I Cutress, Hilary Stobart, Patricia Fairbrother, Sophia Turner, Kayleigh Davies-Crowley and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Shelley Potter *Bristol Medical School, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. shelley.potter@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6977-312X
Katherine Fairhurst *Bristol Medical School, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Katherine CowanJames Lind Alliance, Southampton, UK.
Simon VincentBreast Cancer Now, London, UK.
Ian LewisNational Cancer Research Institute, 2 Redman Place, London, E20 1JQ, UK.
Ramsey I CutressUniversity of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton, Somers Building, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Hilary StobartTrustee, Independent Cancer Patients Voice, London, UK.
Patricia FairbrotherTrustee, Independent Cancer Patients Voice, London, UK.
Sophia TurnerTrustee, Independent Cancer Patients Voice, London, UK.
Kayleigh Davies-CrowleyLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Ranjeet JeevanUniversity Hospitals South Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Tim RattayLeicester Cancer Research Centre, Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, Clinical Sciences Building, University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Rachel O'ConnellRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Downs Road, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5PT, UK.
Nigel BundredUniversity Hospitals South Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Stuart A McIntoshCentre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7AE, UK. s.mcintosh@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4123-9611
The Patients Association · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBBreast Cancer Now · GBNational Cancer Research Institute · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership was developed to identify research priorities in breast cancer surgery from individuals with lived experience, at high genetic risk of breast cancer, and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

methods'Uncertainties' were collected using an online survey. Following an evidence check and development of summary questions, an interim survey asked participants to rank their top 10 research priorities from the question list. Top-ranked questions from patient/carer, high-risk and professional groups were carried forward for discussion to a final online prioritisation workshop.

results260 participants (101 patients/carers, 156 HCPs) submitted 940 uncertainties via the initial survey. These were analysed thematically into 128 summary questions in six topic areas. Following evidence checking, 59 questions were included in the interim survey which was completed by 572 respondents. Marked differences were seen in questions prioritised by patients/carers, HCPs and women at high-risk. The top eight priorities in patient/carer and professional groups and top two priorities for high-risk women were carried forward to the online workshop at which 22 participants discussed and agreed the final top 10. Key themes included de-escalation of breast and axillary surgery, factors impacting the development/detection of locoregional recurrence and optimal provision of support for informed treatment decision-making.

conclusionThe top 10 research priorities in breast cancer surgery have been agreed. However, the observed differences in research priorities identified by patients and professional groups were not anticipated. Top priorities from both groups should inform future UK breast cancer surgical research, to ensure that it addresses questions that are important to breast cancer community as a whole.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomBreast cancer surgeryConsensusJames Lind AllianceResearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID36319906
PMCPMC9628302
OpenAlexW4307851731

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.