Literature DB >> 10885355

Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer.

D Tallon1, J Chard, P Dieppe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that research agendas can be biased. To determine whether there is a mismatch between available research evidence and the research preferences of consumers we examined research on interventions for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint.
METHODS: We searched published and unpublished studies on interventions in this condition to assess the structure of the evidence base. Focus groups and a postal survey of research consumers were then undertaken to examine their views and research priorities.
FINDINGS: Review of published and unpublished reports showed that the evidence base was dominated by studies of pharmaceutical (550, 59%) and surgical (238, 26%) interventions. 24 (36%) of 67 survey respondents ranked knee replacement as the highest priority for research, whereas 14 (21%) chose education and advice as their first choice.
INTERPRETATION: There is a mismatch between the amount of published work on different interventions, and the degree of interest of consumers. We suggest that broadening of the research agenda would be more in line with current treatment patterns and consumer views. If this mismatch is not addressed, then evidence-based medicine will not be representative of consumer needs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10885355     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  123 in total

1.  Are randomised controlled trials in the BMJ different?

Authors:  M Egger; C Bartlett; P Jüni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-11-24

2.  Amount of research interest in rare and common neurological conditions: bibliometric study.

Authors:  R Al-Shahi; R G Will; C P Warlow
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001 Dec 22-29

Review 3.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

4.  Breast cancer prevention.

Authors:  Kefah Mokbel
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Participating in primary care research.

Authors:  Robert K McKinley; Mary Dixon-Woods; Hazel Thornton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 6.  Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application.

Authors:  Aziz Sheikh; Liam Smeeth; Richard Ashcroft
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Lind guidelines offer a checklist for research priorities.

Authors:  Alisa Opar
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 53.440

8.  Critical appraisal guidelines for assessing the quality and impact of user involvement in research.

Authors:  David Wright; Claire Foster; Ziv Amir; Jim Elliott; Roger Wilson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Listening to the views of people affected by cancer about cancer research: an example of participatory research in setting the cancer research agenda.

Authors:  David Wright; Jessica Corner; Jane Hopkinson; Claire Foster
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Descriptive survey of non-commercial randomised controlled trials in the United Kingdom, 1980-2002.

Authors:  Iain Chalmers; Cath Rounding; Kate Lock
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-11-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.