Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28491336›Full record

ReviewCanadian journal of kidney health and disease2017

Opportunities for Engaging Patients in Kidney Research.

Maryam N Demian, Ngan N Lam, Fabrice Mac-Way, Ruth Sapir-Pichhadze, Nicolas Fernandez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian journal of kidney health and disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. How to use and assess qualitative research methods.Neurological research and practice · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Patient and caregiver involvement in a multicentre clustered hemodialysis trial.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Maryam N DemianDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Ngan N LamDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Fabrice Mac-WayDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Québec, Canada.
Ruth Sapir-PichhadzeDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Nicolas FernandezDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
McGill University · CASimon Fraser University · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Laval · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the rationale for engaging patients in research as well as to review the established and envisioned advantages and strategies for patient-researcher partnerships. The authors of this article, which include a patient and 4 researchers in kidney disease, discuss the expected benefits and opportunities for patient engagement in their respective research programs. The 4 research programs span the spectrum of kidney disease and focus on enhancing bone health, increasing living donor kidney transplants, improving medication adherence, and preventing kidney transplant rejection. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The sources of information for this review include published studies on the topics of patient engagement and the 4 research programs of the new investigators. KEY

findings(1) Patient, health care provider, and researcher partnerships can contribute useful insights capable of enhancing research in kidney disease. (2) Regardless of the research program, there are various strategies and opportunities for engagement of patients with lived experience across the various stages of research in kidney disease. (3) Envisioned advantages of patient-researcher partnerships include: targeting patient-identified research priorities, integrating patients' experiential knowledge, improving study design and feasibility through patient-researcher input, facilitating dissemination of research findings to other patients, effectively responding to patient concerns about studies, and inspiring researchers to conduct their research. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the current review include the relative scarcity of literature on patient engagement within the field of kidney disease. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of the current review suggest that it will be important for future studies to identify optimal strategies for patient engagement in setting research priorities, study design, participant recruitment, execution of research projects, and knowledge dissemination and translation.

Indexed as

antibody-mediated rejectionhealth literacyKRESCENT Programliving kidney donationmedication adherencemineral bone diseasepatient engagementpatient experiential knowledgepatient partnership

Identifiers

PMID28491336
PMCPMC5406191
OpenAlexW2606233928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.