ArticleGut2025
Research priorities for cancers of the oesophagus and stomach: recommendations from a UK and Ireland patient and healthcare professional partnership exercise.
Article in Gut, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancers of the oesophagus and stomach are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Research is crucial to improving outcomes. However, to maximise value and impact, areas of focus should be prioritised in partnership with patients.
objectiveWe undertook a comprehensive analysis of UK and Ireland patient and healthcare professional (HCP) priorities for research into oesophagogastric cancers across the domains of prevention, diagnosis and staging, treatment, palliative care and survivorship.
designA scoping exercise sourced research questions from patients and HCPs. These were consolidated and then confirmed by systematic review to represent a true research uncertainty. Research questions were scored on potential impact by an interdisciplinary group of HCPs and prioritised using a weighting derived from a patient survey.
resultsThere were 835 (395 HCP, 440 patient) respondents to the scoping (n=455) and prioritisation (n=380) surveys. Across these, 4295 suggested research uncertainties were consolidated to 92 uncertainties that were prioritised. HCP respondents represented 25 professional groups from community and hospital settings. Patient weighting changed 22.2-46.3% of priority rankings established by HCPs. All domains were represented by the 20 highest priority questions, 5 of which focused on personalising and optimally combining treatment modalities. Two other key themes related to optimising nutrition and improving quality of life during and after treatment, including in patients not cured of their cancer.
conclusionThis work highlights the impact of patient input on HCP-ranked research priorities and provides a robust list of priorities to guide funders, policymakers and researchers to support and undertake impactful research.
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.