The purpose of this Question Verification Form is to enable Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to describe clearly how they checked that their questions were unanswered, before starting the interim prioritisation stage of the process.
The JLA requires PSPs to be transparent and accountable in defining their own scope and evidence checking process. This will enable researchers and other stakeholders to understand how individual PSPs decided that their questions were unanswered, and any limitations of their evidence checking.
Name of the PSP
Research Priorities for Paediatric Intensive Care Nutrition within the United Kingdom: a NIHR James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership
Please describe the scope of the PSP
For the selection of the papers the following inclusion criteria were defined: (a) All research uncertainties related to PICU nutrition in children aged from 0-17 years. (b) All stages of the patient’s pathway were eligible including the immediate PICU care and out-of-hospital care (post intensive care). We excluded from the review studies regarding preterm neonates and adult intensive care or nutrition related questions not relevant to intensive care.
Please provide a brief overview of your approach to checking whether the questions were unanswered
All studies identified with the electronic searches were listed by citation, title, authors and abstract. Duplicates were identified and then removed. Summary questions were excluded if the steering group agreed that high-quality evidence was found (e.g., large clinical trials either published or in-progress, published meta-analyses or published national evidence-based guidelines). Summary questions which did not meet the NIHR James Lind Alliance classification as evidence went through to the interim prioritisation.
Please list the type(s) of evidence you used to verify your questions as unanswered
A worked example has been provided for the summary question relating to energy calculation for mechanically ventilated children.
The research strategy adopted included different combinations of the following terms: “intubated”, “mechanical ventilation,” “critically ill”, “indirect calorimetry,” “energy,” “calories,” “children,” “paediatric,” “infants” and “newborn”.
PRISMA systematic review search methodology for summary questions. Worked Example: what is the evidence for estimated energy requirements in mechanically ventilated children?
Please list the sources that you searched in order to identify that evidence
The following databases were used to scan the data: PubMed, EMBASE, MedRxiv, Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (www. cochranelibrary. com/ about/ central- landing- page. html) databases were searched up to May 8, 2021.,
What search terms did you use?
ventilation,” “critically il,” “children,” “paediatric,” “infants” and “newborn”.
Please describe the parameters of the search (eg time limits, excluded sources, country/language) and the rationale for any limitations
Humans only (animal studies excluded)
Names of individuals who undertook the evidence checking
On what date was the question verification process completed?
May 8, 2021
Any other relevant information
Version 1.0 Date 04/03/2022