Purpose The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. Methods A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. Results In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance. Conclusions Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.
Electrochemotherapy has emerged as a valuable tool in the treatment of cutaneous malignancies that are unamenable to surgical resection. Despite growing recognition and recommendation in national guidelines, to date, no Level 1 evidence exists comparing its use to radiotherapy in the management of cutaneous malignancies. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be undertaken in line with the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and checklist. A comprehensive search strategy will be applied to MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov from the time period from inception to December 2021. Supplementary searches of the grey literature will also be undertaken. Studies in humans which compare treatment with electrochemotherapy to radiotherapy and report tumour response with at least a 4-week follow-up will be eligible. Studies will be included regardless of publication language or country of origin. Screening of studies and data extraction will be undertaken independently by two authors. Our primary outcome will be tumour volume response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. We will also extract any secondary outcomes reported, such as patient-reported outcome measures, pain, toxicity/adverse events and progression-free survival. Included studies will be assessed for risk of bias using recognized tools. Evidence quality will be appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. If studies are of acceptable clinical homogeneity and suitable data is extracted, a meta-analysis will be performed. If adequate data are present, various subgroup analyses will be performed. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s test. PROSPERO CRD42021285415
Background Electrochemotherapy has gained international traction and commendation in national guidelines as an effective tool in the management of cutaneous malignancies not amenable to surgical resection. Despite this, no level 5 evidence exists comparing it to radiotherapy in the treatment of cutaneous malignancies. This systematic review aimed to examine the literature directly and indirectly comparing electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases from primary solid organ malignancies. Materials & methods The protocol for this review was registered on the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the protocol ID CRD42021285415. Searches of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were undertaken from database inception to 28 December 2021. Studies in humans comparing treatment with electrochemotherapy to radiotherapy and reporting tumour response with a minimum four week follow-up were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Results are provided as a narrative synthesis. Results Two case series with a total of 92 patients were identified as relevant to this study. Both case series examined patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. One case series examined elderly patients with predominantly head/neck lesions. The other examined younger patients with predominantly limb lesions who had cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma directly attributable to a rare skin condition. Conclusion There is little literature presenting comparative data for electrochemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of primary cutaneous malignancies or cutaneous metastases. Included studies were marred by serious risk of bias particularly due to confounding. The inherent bias and heterogeneity of the included studies precluded synthesis of a consolidated comparison of clinical outcomes between the two therapies. Further research is required in this domain in the form of clinical trials and observational studies to inform guidelines for electrochemotherapy treatment.
Aims Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK. Methods A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Prehospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus among the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions. Results 201 questions across all were submitted by 65 stakeholders in phase 1. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Conclusions Consensus from within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centric multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.