Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32210544›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020

Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.

Christoph Rach, Jan Lukas, Regina Müller, Matthias Sendler, Peter Simon, Sabine Salloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

6 authors.

Christoph RachInstitute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3146-273X
Jan LukasTranslational Neurodegeneration Section (Albrecht-Kossel), Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Regina MüllerInstitute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Matthias SendlerDepartment of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Peter SimonDepartment of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Sabine SallochInstitute of Ethics and History of Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bioethicsdrug researchpatient and public involvementpatient organizationsystematic review of reasons

Identifiers

PMID32210544
PMCPMC7075437

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.