Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25047393›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2014

A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.

Laura P Forsythe, Victoria Szydlowski, Mohammad Hassan Murad, Stanley Ip, Zhen Wang, Tarig A Elraiyah, Rachael Fleurence, David H Hickam

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Developing a community-led rare disease ELSI research agenda.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Laura P ForsythePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), 1828 L St NW, suite 900, Washington, DC, USA, lforsythe@pcori.org.
Victoria Szydlowski
Mohammad Hassan Murad
Stanley Ip
Zhen Wang
Tarig A Elraiyah
Rachael Fleurence
David H Hickam

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with rare diseases have limited access to useful information to guide treatment decisions. Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in clinical research may help to ensure that research efforts in rare diseases address relevant clinical questions and patient-centered health outcomes. Rare disease organizations may provide an effective means to facilitate patient engagement in research. However, the effectiveness of patient-engagement approaches, particularly for the study of rare diseases, has not been well studied.

objectivesTo synthesize evidence about engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research on rare diseases, including the role of rare disease organizations in facilitating patient-centered research. METHODS/RESEARCH

designA systematic review and gray literature search were guided by a technical expert panel composed of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers. English-language studies that engaged patients or other stakeholders in research on rare diseases or evaluated engagement were included. Studies were assessed on how well key research questions were answered, based on the level of detail describing engagement activities and whether outcomes from engagement were assessed.

resultsThirty-five studies were included, although many reported minimal information on engagement. Patients and other stakeholders were most commonly engaged to identify patient-centered research agendas, to select which study outcomes were important to patients, to provide input on study design, and to identify strategies for increasing enrollment in trials. Rare disease organizations mainly helped provide access to patients and communicated research opportunities and findings. They also helped promote collaborative networks and provided financial support for research infrastructures. Although authors reported benefits of engagement and identified changes to their research processes, no empirical assessments of engagement practices and their effectiveness were found.

conclusionsResearchers studying rare diseases can obtain patient input regarding which research questions and health outcomes to study; however, the most effective approaches to engagement have not been well defined.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPatient ParticipationRare DiseasesHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID25047393
PMCPMC4124116

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.