Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37285158›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Partnering With Patients, Caregivers, and Clinicians to Determine Research Priorities for Concussion.

Martin H Osmond, Elizabeth Legace, Peter J Gill, Rhonda Correll, Katherine Cowan, Jennifer E Dawson, Randene Duncan, Erin Fox, Kanika Gupta, Ash T Kolstad and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Martin H OsmondDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Elizabeth LegaceChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Peter J GillDepartment of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rhonda CorrellChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Katherine CowanJames Lind Alliance, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jennifer E DawsonChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Randene DuncanPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Erin FoxPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Kanika GuptaPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Ash T KolstadPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Lisa Marie LangevinAlberta Children's Hospital Research Institute for Child and Maternal Health, Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Canada.
Colin MacarthurDepartment of Pediatrics, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rosemary MacklemPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Kinga OlszewskaPatient Partner, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada.
Nick ReedDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Roger ZemekDepartment of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Traumatic Brain Injury Research Consortium
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CASickKids Foundation · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR NG4-169804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Identifying research priorities of patients with concussion, their caregivers, and their clinicians is important to ensure future concussion research reflects the needs of those who will benefit from the research. Objective: To prioritize concussion research questions from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and clinicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional survey study used the standardized James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership methods (2 online cross-sectional surveys and 1 virtual consensus workshop using modified Delphi and nominal group techniques). Data were collected between October 1, 2020, and May 26, 2022, from people with lived concussion experience (patients and caregivers) and clinicians who treat concussion throughout Canada. Exposures: The first survey collected unanswered questions about concussion that were compiled into summary questions and checked against research evidence to ensure they were unanswered. A second priority-setting survey generated a short list of questions, and 24 participants attended a final priority-setting workshop to decide on the top 10 research questions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Top 10 concussion research questions. Results: The first survey had 249 respondents (159 [64%] who identified as female; mean [SD] age, 45.1 [16.3] years), including 145 with lived experience and 104 clinicians. A total of 1761 concussion research questions and comments were collected and 1515 (86%) were considered in scope. These were combined into 88 summary questions, of which 5 were considered answered following evidence review, 14 were further combined to form new summary questions, and 10 were removed for being submitted by only 1 or 2 respondents. The 59 unanswered questions were circulated in a second survey, which had 989 respondents (764 [77%] who identified as female; mean [SD] age, 43.0 [4.2] years), including 654 people who identified as having lived experience and 327 who identified as clinicians (excluding 8 who did not record type of participant). This resulted in 17 questions short-listed for the final workshop. The top 10 concussion research questions were decided by consensus at the workshop. The main research question themes focused on early and accurate concussion diagnosis, effective symptom management, and prediction of poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This priority-setting partnership identified the top 10 patient-oriented research questions in concussion. These questions can be used to provide direction to the concussion research community and help prioritize funding for research that matters most to patients living with concussion and those who care for them.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCaregiversAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID37285158
PMCPMC10248744
OpenAlexW4379599151

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.