ArticleDialogues in health2022
A survey and stakeholder group prioritised key systematic review questions in airways disease.
Article in Dialogues in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Priority setting is important for healthcare research. The Cochrane Airways Group wanted to prioritise topics for systematic reviews across all chronic respiratory diseases with limited resources and according to latest Cochrane policy.The objective was to prioritise 10 reviews of importance to the public (patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) from a patient survey. Study design and setting: We convened a stakeholder group of patients, carers, healthcare professionals and representatives from charities. We conducted an online survey to collect uncertainties about the treatment and management of respiratory disease from the public. Uncertainties were ranked by the stakeholder group, and scoping searches refined the uncertainties into systematic review questions. Results: We received 147 survey responses. We removed duplicates and blank responses and asked the stakeholder group to rank 100 uncertainties. The first round of voting produced a list of 29 topics and the second round resulted in 12 uncertainties. These uncertainties were scoped with literature searches and teased out further into systematic review topics. We identified 3 Cochrane reviews to update, 8 new review topics, and 3 evidence gaps. Conclusion: We successfully convened a stakeholder group and prioritised a list of uncertainties in the treatment and management of airways diseases that had been identified by patients and the public.
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.