ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2023
Refreshing the emergency medicine research priorities.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research priorities for intensive care: A stakeholder-informed priority-setting partnership.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of biomarkers for outcomes prediction in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the emergency department: a synthesis of current evidence.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- Improving prehospital and emergency care for patients with mental dysregulation: a comprehensive research agenda.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Characteristics and Palliative Care Involvement in Patients Dying in Five UK Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Service Evaluation.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Article
- Emergency Medicine: The Paradigm Shift.Journal of acute medicine · 2025Article
- Reducing the Number of Intrusive Memories of Work-Related Traumatic Events in Frontline Health Care Staff During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Series.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Retaining doctors in emergency medicine: an ethnographic study of emergency departments in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Article
- Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Frailty in European Emergency Departments (FEED): an international flash mob study.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
- Consensus statement on the interhospital transfer of patients with acute aortic syndrome: TRAVERSING Delphi study.Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2024Article
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
backgroundThe priorities for UK emergency medicine research were defined in 2017 by a priority setting partnership coordinated by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA). Much has changed in the last 5 years, not least a global infectious disease pandemic and a significant worsening of the crisis in the urgent and emergency care system. Our aim was to review and refresh the emergency medicine research priorities.
methodsA steering group including patients, carers and healthcare professionals was established to agree to the methodology of the refresh. An independent adviser from the JLA chaired the steering group. The scope was adult patients in the ED. New questions were invited via an open call using multiple communications methods ensuring that patients, carers and healthcare professionals had the opportunity to contribute. Questions underwent minisystematic (BestBETs) review to determine if the question had been answered, and the original 2017 priorities were reviewed. Any questions that remained unanswered were included in an interim prioritisation survey, which was distributed to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Rankings from this survey were reviewed by the steering group and a shortlist of questions put forward to the final workshop, which was held to discuss and rank the research questions in order of priority.
results77 new questions were submitted, of which 58 underwent mini-systematic review. After this process, 49 questions (of which 32 were new, 11 were related to original priorities and 6 unanswered original priorities were carried forward) were reviewed by the steering group and included in an interim prioritisation survey. The interim prioritisation survey attracted 276 individual responses. 26 questions were shortlisted for discussion at the final prioritisation workshop, where the top 10 research priorities were agreed.
conclusionWe have redefined the priorities for emergency medicine research in the UK using robust and established methodology, which will inform the agenda for the coming years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.