Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22390732›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013

Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.

Julia Kreis, Milo A Puhan, Holger J Schünemann, Kay Dickersin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Pooled it
  5. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Coproducing Health Information Materials With Young People: Reflections and Lessons Learned.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Julia KreisHarkness/Bosch Fellow, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USAResearch Associate, Department Non-Drug Interventions, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, GermanyAssociate Professor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USAProfessor, Departments of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, CanadaProfessor, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Milo A Puhan
Holger J Schünemann
Kay Dickersin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Institute of Medicine recently recommended that comparative effectiveness research (CER) should involve input from consumers. While systematic reviews are a major component of CER, little is known about consumer involvement.

objectiveTo explore current approaches to involving consumers in US-based and key international organizations and groups conducting or commissioning systematic reviews ('organizations').

designIn-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants and review of organizations' websites. SETTING AND

participantsSeventeen highly regarded US-based and international (Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration) organizations.

resultsOrganizations that usually involve consumers (seven of 17 in our sample) involve them at a programmatic level in the organization or in individual reviews through one-time consultation or on-going collaboration. For example, consumers may suggest topics, provide input on the key questions of the review, provide comments on draft protocols and reports, serve as co-authors or on an advisory group. Organizations involve different types of consumers (individual patients, consumer advocates, families and caregivers), recruiting them mainly through patient organizations and consumer networks. Some offer training in research methods, and one developed training for researchers on how to involve consumers. Little formal evaluation of the effects of consumer involvement is being carried out.

conclusionsConsumers are currently involved in systematic reviews in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Assessing which approaches are most effective in achieving different aims of consumer involvement is now required to inform future recommendations on consumer involvement in CER.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationReview Literature as TopicComparative Effectiveness ResearchConflict of InterestHumansInterviews as TopicUnited Statesconsumer involvementconsumer participationresearchsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID22390732
PMCPMC5060681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.