Abstract：
The health research agenda has historically been led by researchers; however, their priorities may not necessarily align with those of patients, caregivers and clinicians. Research priority setting initiatives identify and prioritise topics which lack evidence. This is particularly important in plastic surgery, a speciality lacking high-quality evidence to definitively answer many common clinical questions. Research priorities direct research activity and funding, so their selection process must be representative and transparent. This review appraised all priority setting initiatives in plastic surgery using the reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE).
OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for \'research priority setting\' and \'plastic and reconstructive surgery\'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.
Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).
Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.
OVID Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) repository were searched (inception - 11/06/21) using search terms for \'research priority setting\' and \'plastic and reconstructive surgery\'. Dual-author screening and data extraction were conducted, according to PRISMA.
Of 3899 de-duplicated citations, 17 were included. Most studies were conducted in national (14/17), high-income (16/17) settings. More priority setting initiatives focussed on burns (6/17) and hand surgery (4/17) than other subspecialties. The JLA (5/17) and qualitative (5/17) approaches were most used for prioritisation, followed by Delphi techniques (3/17), other surveys (3/17) and mixed methods (1/17). A minority included patient (8/17) or multi-disciplinary (8/17) stakeholders. Few reported strategies for implementing research priorities (6/17) or measuring their impact (2/17).
Stakeholders from lower-income countries are underrepresented in priority setting initiatives for plastic surgery, despite the global burden of disease. Future studies should recruit more patient and multidisciplinary stakeholders, to achieve meaningful consensus. Clear implementation strategies are needed to maximise impact.
摘要：
背景：健康研究议程历来由研究人员领导；然而，他们的优先事项可能不一定与患者一致，护理人员和临床医生。研究优先级设置计划确定并优先考虑缺乏证据的主题。这在整形手术中尤其重要，缺乏高质量证据来明确回答许多常见临床问题的专业。研究优先事项直接研究活动和资金，因此，他们的选择过程必须具有代表性和透明度。本综述使用健康研究优先设置报告指南（REPRISE）评估了整形外科中的所有优先设置举措。
方法：OVIDMedline，EMBASE,使用“研究优先级设置”和“整形和重建手术”的搜索词对CINAHL和JamesLindAlliance（JLA）存储库进行了搜索（开始-11/06/21）。进行了双作者筛选和数据提取，根据PRISMA。
结果：在3899个重复引用中，17人被包括在内。大多数研究是在国家进行的（14/17），高收入（16/17）设置。与其他亚专科相比，更优先的设定举措侧重于烧伤（6/17）和手外科（4/17）。JLA(5/17)和定性(5/17)方法最多用于优先级排序，其次是德尔菲技术(3/17)，其他调查(3/17)和混合方法(1/17)。少数包括患者（8/17）或多学科（8/17）利益相关者。很少报告实施研究重点（6/17）或衡量其影响（2/17）的战略。
结论：低收入国家的利益相关者在整形外科的优先计划中代表性不足，尽管全球疾病负担。未来的研究应该招募更多的患者和多学科的利益相关者，达成有意义的共识。需要明确的实施战略，以最大限度地发挥影响。
方法：OVIDMedline，EMBASE,使用“研究优先级设置”和“整形和重建手术”的搜索词对CINAHL和JamesLindAlliance（JLA）存储库进行了搜索（开始-11/06/21）。进行了双作者筛选和数据提取，根据PRISMA。
结果：在3899个重复引用中，17人被包括在内。大多数研究是在国家进行的（14/17），高收入（16/17）设置。与其他亚专科相比，更优先的设定举措侧重于烧伤（6/17）和手外科（4/17）。JLA(5/17)和定性(5/17)方法最多用于优先级排序，其次是德尔菲技术(3/17)，其他调查(3/17)和混合方法(1/17)。少数包括患者（8/17）或多学科（8/17）利益相关者。很少报告实施研究重点（6/17）或衡量其影响（2/17）的战略。
结论：低收入国家的利益相关者在整形外科的优先计划中代表性不足，尽管全球疾病负担。未来的研究应该招募更多的患者和多学科的利益相关者，达成有意义的共识。需要明确的实施战略，以最大限度地发挥影响。
