Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38188614›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2023

Evidencing the effectiveness of upper limb prostheses: a multi-stakeholder perspective on study requirements.

Hannah Jones, Alix Chadwell, Matthew Dyson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hannah Jones *Intelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Alix Chadwell *Intelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Matthew Dyson *Intelligent Sensing Laboratory, School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The provision of upper limb prosthetic devices through the National Health Services (NHS) within the United Kingdom is driven by national policies. NHS England have recently published a new policy to provide multi-grip myoelectric hands. The policy highlighted that there was limited evidence to support its deployment and it will be reviewed should new information arise. The clear identification of the evidence gap provides an opportunity for the academic research community to conduct studies that will inform future iterations of this and other upper limb prosthetic related policies. This paper presents a summary of findings and recommendations based on two multi-stakeholder workshops held in June 2022 and July 2022, which explored the design requirements for policy-driven research studies. The workshops involved people from a broad range of stakeholder groups: policy, academia, NHS clinical and management, industry, and a person with upper limb absence. The workshop discussions focused on the research questions that NHS England identified in the policy evidence review: (1) Clinical Effectiveness; (2) Cost Effectiveness; (3) Safety; and (4) Patient Subgroups. The recommendations based on stakeholder discussions included the need to gather qualitative and quantitative research evidence, use goal-based outcome measures, and conduct longitudinal studies. Future research studies also need to address the complexities of conducting national and international policy-driven research, such as clinical resource capacity and participant involvement.

Indexed as

outcome measurespolicyquality of lifestakeholder engagementupper limb prosthetics

Identifiers

PMID38188614
PMCPMC10768005

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.