ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom.
Article in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. 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.
- Rehabilitation Following External Fixation for Lower Limb Trauma: A Service Evaluation Mapping the Gaps in Practice and Evidence.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Limb reconstruction surgery (LRS) has a wide range of clinical applications within orthopaedic and trauma surgery. We sought a consensus view from limb reconstruction healthcare practitioners across the United Kingdom to help guide research priorities within LRS. Our aim is to guide future clinical research in LRS, and assist healthcare practitioners, clinical academics, and funding bodies in identifying key research priorities to improve patient care. Materials and methods: A modified Delphi approach was used; it involved an initial scoping survey and a 2-round Delphi process to identify the consensus research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS. Participants were asked to rank approved submitted questions according to perceived importance on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented lowest importance and 5 indicated highest importance. Mean scores were calculated to identify a consensus of the top ten research priorities for adult and paediatric LRS. Results: One hundred and fifteen participants primarily from across the United Kingdom working in LRS contributed to the modified Delphi process. Participants ranked and then re-ranked the presented research topics in terms of perceived importance. This led to the identification of a top ten research priorities in both adult and paediatric LRS, respectively, based on the collective responses of LRS practitioners. The highest-ranked questions in both adult and paediatric practice related to how to best assess and record patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in LRS patients. Other priorities included the effectiveness of specialist physiotherapy, the use of patient-focused psychological support, and the use of various operative management strategies for infection and limb length discrepancies. Conclusion: We present a consensus-driven research priority study that outlines the key research topics and themes determined by healthcare professionals within LRS in the United Kingdom. Clinical significance: These questions will assist funding bodies in prioritising where research funding may be best utilised and help drive future improvement in patient care. How to cite this article: British Limb Reconstruction Society Research Collaborative. Identifying Research Priorities in Limb Reconstruction Surgery in the United Kingdom. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2024;19(1):1-8.
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.