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
Spinal Cord Injury (Sweden)
Please describe the scope of the PSP
The Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) in Sweden PSP aimed to identify uncertainties, needs and what is important to persons living with an acquired SCI, according to themselves, their relatives and carers, and health professionals working with people with SCI in Sweden.
Please provide a brief overview of your approach to checking whether the questions were unanswered
A literature review was conducted using primarily PubMed to check if each of the questions were answered or unanswered by the current literature. We used two general blocks of search terms, one for our target group and one for reviews, and for each question, (see below) Several questions where of a kind that might not be answered in medical journals, and for those, both Cinahl and PsycInfo were also used to assess the state of evidence.
All reviews found by each search for each question were assessed in Rayyan. Two persons collaborated on each review and read titles and abstracts, and if needed full articles. If both tagged an article excluded or included, it was excluded or included. If one or both person(s) were undecided, the article was discussed with the other pair of evidence checkers and all four decided whether it was to be included or not.
If a question was partially answered, we saved the article with the partial answers in our data spreadsheet.
Please list the type(s) of evidence you used to verify your questions as unanswered
Reviews in English from the last five years.
Please list the sources that you searched in order to identify that evidence
PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO
What search terms did you use?
1. General terms for target group
(((("Spinal Cord Injuries"[Mesh] OR "Spinal Cord Ischemia"[Mesh] OR "Central Cord Syndrome"[Mesh] OR "Paraplegia"[Mesh] OR "Quadriplegia"[Mesh]) OR (myelopathy[tiab] AND (traumatic[tiab] or post-traumatic[tiab]))) OR (spinal cord[tiab] AND (contusion[tiab] OR laceration[tiab] OR transaction[tiab] OR trauma[tiab] OR ischemia[tiab] OR injur*[tiab] OR damag*[tiab] OR lesion*[tiab]))) OR (central cord injury syndrome[tiab] OR central spinal cord syndrome[tiab] OR paraplegi*[tiab] OR quadriplegi*[tiab] OR tetraplegi*[tiab]))
2. General terms for systematic review
(((Meta-Analysis[Publication Type] OR Meta-Analysis as Topic[Mesh] OR Systematic Review[Publication Type]) OR (systematic[sb])) OR ((review[tiab] OR reviews[tiab]) AND (search*[tiab]) AND (medline[tiab] OR embase[tiab] OR pubmed[tiab] OR cochrane[tiab] OR psycinfo[tiab] OR psychlit[tiab] OR CINAHL[tiab] OR scopus[tiab]))) OR (meta-analy*[tiab] OR metaanaly*[tiab] OR meta-synthes*[tiab] OR metasynthes*[tiab])
3. Specific terms for RQ
We used relevant Mesh terms and their entery terms for each question. See data spreadsheet for the search terms.
Please describe the parameters of the search (eg time limits, excluded sources, country/language) and the rationale for any limitations
(2017:2022[pdat])
Names of individuals who undertook the evidence checking
Jeanette Melin, Johanna Wangdell, Emelie Axwalter and Gunilla Åhrén
On what date was the question verification process completed?
April 6 2022
Any other relevant information
N/A