ArticleBMJ open2016
Patient involvement in research priorities (PIRE): a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Why involvement remains fragile: a qualitative comparison of principal investigators' and patient organisations' perspectives in Italy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- International PCOS guideline clinical research priorities roadmap: a co-designed approach aligned with end-user priorities in a neglected women's health condition.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Haemochromatosis patients' research priorities: Towards an improved quality of life.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Patient and public involvement in Nordic healthcare research: a scoping review of contemporary practice.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Public and patient involvement: a survey on knowledge, experience and opinions among researchers within a precision oncology European project.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Cultural Knowledge in Context - People Aged 50 Years and Over Make Sense of a First Fracture and Osteoporosis.Journal of patient experience · 2023Article
- Enabling Transdisciplinary Collaboration: Stakeholder Views on Working With "Children With Mentally Ill Parents" Research Groups.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The Precision Health and Everyday Democracy (PHED) Project: Protocol for a Transdisciplinary Collaboration on Health Equity and the Role of Health in Society.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Article
- Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2020Article
- Partnering with frail or seriously ill patients in research: a systematic review.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Review
- Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient involvement in healthcare has expanded from the clinical practice setting to include collaboration during the research process. There has been a growing international interest in patient and public involvement in setting research priorities to reduce the risk of discrepancy between what patients with cancer and their relatives experience as important unanswered questions and those which are actually researched. This study aims to challenge the conventional research process by inviting patients with life-threatening cancer (primary malignant brain tumours or acute leukaemia), relatives and patient organisations to join forces with clinical specialists and researchers to identify, discuss and prioritise supportive care and rehabilitation issues in future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an exploratory qualitative study comprising two sets of three focus group interviews (FGIs): one set for primary malignant brain tumours and the other for acute leukaemia. Separate FGIs will be carried out with patients and relatives including representation from patient organisations and clinical specialists to identify important unanswered questions and research topics within each group. The FGIs will be video/audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. This study will contribute to a patient-centred research agenda that captures issues that patients, their relatives, clinical specialists and researchers consider important. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is registered at the Danish Data Protection Agency (number: 2012-58-0004) and the Scientific Ethics Review Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (number: H-15001485). Papers will be published describing the methods applied and the supportive care and rehabilitation issues that are identified as important for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN57131943; Pre-results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.