Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29661195›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2018

Impact of patient involvement on clinical practice guideline development: a parallel group study.

Melissa J Armstrong, C Daniel Mullins, Gary S Gronseth, Anna R Gagliardi

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

92 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Characteristics and quality of clinical practice guidelines for diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. A systematic review and synthesis of global stroke guidelines on behalf of the World Stroke Organization.International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 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

4 authors.

Melissa J ArmstrongDepartment of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. melissa.armstrong@neurology.ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2163-1907
C Daniel MullinsPharmaceutical Health Services Research Department, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Gary S GronsethDepartment of Neurology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Anna R GagliardiToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

PATIENTS: PATient-centered Involvement in Evaluating effectivNess of TreatmentR24HS022135 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI MULLINS, C. DANIEL · 2013 to 2017
$4.9M
Enhancing Clinical Guideline Development via Patient and Stakeholder EngagementK08HS024159 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI ARMSTRONG, MELISSA JO · 2015 to 2019
$693k
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality K08HS24159Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality R24HS022135AHRQ HHS K08 HS024159AHRQ HHS R24 HS022135NIA NIH HHS L30 AG057119
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is recognized as a key component of clinical practice guideline development with important implications for guideline implementability. The impact of PPI on guidelines, however, has not been rigorously assessed. Better understanding of the impact of PPI must start with guideline question formation, which drives all subsequent development steps. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of PPI on guideline question formation and validate a conceptual model of patient and public contributions to guidelines.

methodsFor development of a clinical practice guideline on the topic of using amyloid positron emission tomography in the diagnosis of dementia, we convened two parallel guideline development groups, one with and one without patient representatives. Participating physicians were randomized to group assignment. Each group developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Time (PICOT) questions and identified key benefits and harms to incorporate in guideline development. Analysis included a descriptive comparison of proposed PICOT questions, benefits, and harms between groups and a qualitative analysis of discussion themes from audio recordings of the question development retreats.

resultsProposed guideline questions, benefits, and harms were largely similar between groups, but only the experimental group proposed outcomes relating to development of cognitive impairment at specific time points and rate of progression. The qualitative analysis of the discussions occurring during guideline question development demonstrated key differences in group conduct and validated the proposed conceptual model of patient and public contributions to guidelines. PPI influenced the conduct of guideline development, scope, inclusion of patient-relevant topics, outcome selection, and planned approaches to recommendation development, implementation, and dissemination with implications for both guideline developers and the guideline development process.

conclusionsEvidence of how PPI impacts guideline development underscores the importance of engaging patient stakeholders in guideline development and highlights developer- and guideline-specific outcomes of PPI, both of which have implications for guideline implementation. It also raises the question of whether guidelines developed without such input are acceptable for use. PPI should be considered an essential element of trustworthy guideline development for purposes of development and funding.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultAgedCommunity ParticipationConsensusHumansInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementClinical practice guidelineEvidence-based guidelineGuideline Adherence [MeSH term]Guidelines as Topic [MeSH term]ImplementationPatient-Centered Care [MeSH term]Patient involvementPatient Participation [MeSH term]

Identifiers

PMID29661195
PMCPMC5902835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.