ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2023
Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence Map of Cochrane Reviews on Nutrition and Physical Activity in Healthy and At-Risk Populations: A Scoping Review.Journal of prevention (2022) · 2026Review
- Pain, Agitation, Delirium, and Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome Management in Children Who Are Critically Ill: Protocol for a European Clinical Practice Guideline Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Ten practices for successful study coding in research syntheses: Developing coding manuals and coding forms.Research synthesis methods · 2025Review
- Challenges and Facilitators to Patient and Public Involvement In Stroke Research: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Stroke patient and stakeholder engagement (SPSE): concepts, definitions, models, implementation strategies, indicators, and frameworks-a systematic scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Patient and public involvement in an evidence synthesis project: description of and reflection on involvement.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: It is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews, but it is not clear how best to involve them. Aim: To describe and reflect on the stakeholder involvement within an update of a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke. Methods: A stakeholder group, comprising 15 stroke survivors, carers, and physiotherapists from across the United Kingdom, were recruited and contributed throughout the process of the review. A framework was used to describe when and how stakeholders were involved. Stakeholders provided feedback on their involvement after meetings. An amended version of a validated patient engagement tool was used to collect reflections on the stakeholder involvement process. Results: Five stakeholder meetings were held throughout the review process, supplemented by additional communication. Several changes were made to the review structure, analyses, and wording as a direct result of the stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders and researchers agreed that stakeholders' contributions were taken seriously and influenced the review. Stakeholders felt that they were given the chance to share their views and that information was shared well before, during, and after each meeting to help them to contribute knowledgeably in the process. Stakeholder reflections highlighted a number of key lessons relating to stakeholder involvement, including process of reflection and feedback, use of remote/virtual meetings, need for adequate time and funding, tensions experienced by clinicians, and recruitment considerations. Conclusions: We describe and reflect on stakeholder involvement in a systematic review and explores practical ways to support meaningful engagement during systematic review production. Our experience supports the view that coproducing reviews with stakeholders can make systematic reviews more relevant and meaningful. Our approach and experiences can be used to inform future review coproduction, supporting development of useful reviews that will improve clinical practice.
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.