ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes, barriers and facilitators.BMC health services research · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring Patient Organization Involvement in Stem Cell Research: Insights from the Lifeworld.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Digital Transformation in Patient Organizations: Interview and Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Between willingness and practice: a nationwide survey of 1,334 German patient organization members on user involvement in digital service development.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Older Adult Perspectives on Statin Continuation and Discontinuation in Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Mixed-Methods Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?-an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
- Collective forward-looking responsibility of patient advocacy organizations: conceptual and ethical analysis.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients have evolved from mere objects of study to active contributors to drug research in recent decades. Since individual patient's influence to change research processes effectively is limited, patient groups play an important role in the planning and conducting of pharmaceutical studies. Patient group engagement in drug research is usually seen as being beneficial from an ethical viewpoint as well as from the perspective of research practice, while potential disadvantages and risks have been discussed considerably less. PURPOSE: A systematic review of reasons was conducted to allow for an overview of the reasons for and against involving patient groups in drug research.
methodsThe literature search was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science. Reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research were extracted and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. The review's main limitation arises from a lack of critical appraisal regarding the quality of the reasons.
resultsA total of 2271 references were retrieved, of which 97 were included in the analysis. Data extraction revealed 91 (73.4%) reasons for and 30 (24.2%) reasons against involving patient organizations in drug research, and 3 (2.4%) ambivalent reasons; amounting to 124 reasons. The main groups of reasons were clustered around the categories: quality of research, acquisition and allocation of resources, and the patient role in research.
conclusionThis is the first systematic review of reasons concerning the influence of patient groups on drug research. It provides a basis for a continuing debate about the value as well as the limits of involving patient groups. Due to the diversity of research projects there can be no general recommendation for or against patient group involvement. More research is necessary to assess potential advantages and disadvantages of patient groups' influence on other types of research (eg genetics).
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.