ArticleScientific reports2025
A Delphi study to identify and prioritize research areas in sickle cell disease in India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Review
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
Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) poses a significant health burden in India, necessitating comprehensive research to address its complex challenges. This Delphi study engaged a diverse panel of experts and stakeholders to identify and prioritize critical research questions on SCD in India. A total of 74 experts participated in the process of prioritizing research questions in SCD. In the first Delphi round, 52 participants, including scientists, clinicians, policymakers, and representatives from governmental and non-governmental organizations, attended this meeting, where 163 SCD research areas were generated. These areas were refined by the Delphi team in consultation with the core working group, and 16 priority questions were circulated to 81 experts (of which 65 responded) for rating 3 top priority questions. The study revealed three key research priorities: implementation research considering community perceptions addressing stigma, improving diagnostic methods, and developing affordable treatment options. Experts also emphasized the need for patient-centered research, addressing psychosocial challenges, and incorporating innovative treatments and diagnostic tools. The findings provide important insights for advancing SCD research and inform the direction of future SCD research in India, focusing on early detection, innovative treatments, and patient-centered care.
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.