Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: Research in Traumatic Brain Injury and Spinal Cord Injury
Author Information
Author(s): Bragge Peter, Clavisi Ornella, Turner Tari, Tavender Emma, Collie Alex, Gruen Russell L
Primary Institution: Monash University
Hypothesis
How can evidence mapping identify gaps in research for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI)?
Conclusion
The GEM Initiative has advanced evidence mapping methods, highlighting the importance of stakeholder engagement in developing relevant clinical research questions.
Supporting Evidence
- 129 clinical research questions were generated covering TBI and SCI.
- 60 of the 129 questions were identified as high priority.
- 58,263 abstracts screened and 3,731 full-text articles reviewed.
Takeaway
This study helps researchers and doctors find out what we know and what we still need to learn about brain and spinal injuries.
Methodology
The GEM evidence mapping method involved setting boundaries, selecting relevant studies, and reporting on study characteristics.
Potential Biases
Potential bias from stakeholder perspectives in question development.
Limitations
Evidence mapping does not include quality appraisal or synthesis of studies, which limits its use in guiding clinical practice.
Participant Demographics
Stakeholders included patients, carers, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website