ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2026
Refreshing the paediatric emergency medicine research priorities across the UK and Ireland.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe original research priorities for paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) in the UK and Ireland were published in 2015. This list, generated through a modified Delphi process involving healthcare professionals only, has driven the research agenda for over ten years. With many now successfully addressed and a significantly altered healthcare landscape, there was a pressing need to refresh PEM research priorities with the input of patients and carers.
methodsJames Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology was employed. The scope included unscheduled emergency care provided to children and young people irrespective of setting. An independent JLA facilitator chaired monthly steering group meetings with equal input from parents and healthcare professionals. Two online surveys were employed to generate a list of evidence uncertainties and then to prioritise research questions from key stakeholder groups (patients, carers and healthcare professionals). An online workshop subsequently used an adapted nominal group technique to reach a consensus on the top list of research priorities.
results655 questions were submitted in Survey 1 by 338 respondents (35% patients and carers and 65% healthcare professionals). After merging questions by topic and removing out-of-scope questions, 70 summary questions proceeded to evidence reviews; three were found to have been sufficiently answered. Further merging of summary questions resulted in 46 indicative research questions for Survey 2, which received 542 complete responses (26.6% patients and carers, 73.4% healthcare professionals). The 18 highest-ranking questions were brought to the consensus workshop, in which 12 patients/carers and 15 healthcare professionals reached consensus on the 10 highest priority research questions.
conclusionThis refreshed PEM prioritisation study has identified the top 10 research priorities reflecting the views of patients, carers and a range of health professionals across the UK and Ireland. These priorities will be used to drive the PEM research agenda for the next decade.
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.