Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36357847›Full record

ReviewBMC medical research methodology2022

A proposed methodology for uncertainty extraction and verification in priority setting partnerships with the James Lind Alliance: an example from the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership.

D J C Grindlay, T R C Davis, D Kennedy, D Larson, D Furniss, K Cowan, G Giddins, A Jain, R W Trickett, A Karantana

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

D J C GrindlayCentre for Evidence Based Hand Surgery, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
T R C DavisQueens Medical Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Derby Road, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
D KennedyDepartment of Surgery & Cancer, Pain Research Group, Imperial College London, London, UK.
D LarsonSpire Norwich Hospital, Old Watton Rd, Norwich, NR4 7TD, UK.
D FurnissNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
K CowanThe James Lind Alliance, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS, UK.
G GiddinsOrthopaedic Department, Royal United Hospitals, Bath, BA2 9BU, UK.
A JainNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
R W TrickettTrauma and Orthopaedic Department, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XX, UK. ryan.trickett@wales.nhs.uk.
A KarantanaCentre for Evidence Based Hand Surgery, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo report our recommended methodology for extracting and then confirming research uncertainties - areas where research has failed to answer a research question - derived from previously published literature during a broad scope Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) with the James Lind Alliance (JLA).

methodsThis process was completed in the UK as part of the PSP for "Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist", comprising of health professionals, patients and carers and reports the data (uncertainty) extraction phase of this. The PSP followed the robust methodology dictated by the JLA and sought to identify knowledge gaps, termed "uncertainties" by the JLA. Published Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Guidelines and Protocols, NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) Guidelines, and SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) Guidelines were screened for documented "uncertainties". A robust method of screening, internally verifying and then checking uncertainties was adopted. This included independent screening and data extraction by multiple researchers and use of a PRISMA flowchart, alongside steering group consensus processes. Selection of research uncertainties was guided by the scope of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP which focused on "common" hand conditions routinely treated by hand specialists, including hand surgeons and hand therapists limited to identifying questions concerning the results of intervention, and not the basic science or epidemiology behind disease.

resultsOf the 2358 records identified (after removal of duplicates) which entered the screening process, 186 records were presented to the PSP steering group for eligibility assessment; 79 were deemed within scope and included for the purpose of research uncertainty extraction (45 full Cochrane Reviews, 18 Cochrane Review protocols, 16 Guidelines). These yielded 89 research uncertainties, which were compared to the stakeholder survey, and added to the longlist where necessary; before derived uncertainties were checked against non-Cochrane published systematic reviews.

conclusionsIn carrying out this work, beyond reporting on output of the Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist PSP, we detail the methodology and processes we hope can inform and facilitate the work of future PSPs and other evidence reviews, especially those with a broader scope beyond a single disease or condition.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHealth PrioritiesHumansResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesUncertaintyWristResearch designResearch prioritiesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36357847
PMCPMC9650903

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.