ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2026
Reducing the burden of osteoarthritis in Australia: A 2024-2025 research priority-setting study.
Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify research priorities for osteoarthritis (OA) in Australia to reduce the individual and societal burden of OA. Design: We used accepted priority setting methodology involving multiple stages: 1) gathering unanswered research priorities from selected literature; 2) assembling an expert panel and using an online survey to obtain additional priorities from panelists; 3) consolidating research priorities (eg. removing duplicates); 4) panel rating of priorities for importance on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = 'not at all important; 10 = 'extremely important') via another online survey; 5) analyzing and compiling the final list of priorities; and 6) addressing implementation via a one-day National Summit. Results: 38 research priorities were identified from the literature. 288 nation-wide panel experts (204 consumers/carers/consumer organisations; 47 clinicians from 9 disciplines; 32 researchers; and 5 industry/research funders) provided an additional 99 priorities. Following consolidation, 90 priorities remained and were organised under 8 themes. 204 of the original panelists (71 %) rated the priorities. All priorities scored a mean importance rating ≥6 and so were retained, giving a final list of 90. Mean (SD) importance scores for the top 20 priorities ranged from 8.2 (1.9) to 8.9 (1.9). Overall, the top 3 priorities related to developing drugs/strategies to prevent disease progression and regeneration of damaged cartilage. There was variation across consumers, clinicians and researchers, with only 2 of the same priorities ranked in each of their top 20. Conclusions: We determined key research priorities for OA. These can help guide research directions and funding to enhance outcomes for people with OA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.