Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34877248›Full record

ReviewZeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health2021

Research priority setting in obesity: a systematic review.

Halima Iqbal, Rosemary R C McEachan, Jane West, Melanie Haith-Cooper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring the obesity concerns of British Pakistani women living in deprived inner-city areas: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Halima IqbalFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0895-1479
Rosemary R C McEachanBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Jane WestBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Melanie Haith-CooperFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/S037527/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimObesity research priority setting, if conducted to a high standard, can help promote policy-relevant and efficient research. Therefore, there is a need to identify existing research priority setting studies conducted in the topic area of obesity and to determine the extent to which they followed good practice principles for research priority setting.

methodStudies examining research priority setting in obesity were identified through searching the MEDLINE, PBSC, CINAHL, PsycINFO databases and the grey literature. The nine common themes of good practice in research priority setting were used as a methodological framework to evaluate the processes of the included studies. These were context, use of a comprehensive approach, inclusiveness, information gathering, planning for implementation, criteria, methods for deciding on priorities, evaluation and transparency.

resultsThirteen articles reporting research prioritisation exercises conducted in different areas of obesity research were included. All studies reported engaging with various stakeholders such as policy makers, researchers and healthcare professionals. Public involvement was included in six studies. Methods of research prioritisation commonly included both Delphi and nominal group techniques and surveys. None of the 13 studies fulfilled all nine of the good practice criteria for research priority setting, with the most common limitations including not using a comprehensive approach and lack of inclusivity and evaluating on their processes.

conclusionThere is a need for research priority setting studies in obesity to involve the public and to evaluate their exercises to ensure they are of high quality.

Indexed as

obesityobesity research agendaresearch priority setting

Identifiers

PMID34877248
PMCPMC8641289

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.