ArticleBMJ open2020
Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Approaches to Patient-Centered Care in Europe: Mixed Methods Study Developing a Conceptual Framework for Comprehensive Cancer Care Networks.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Volunteer responders' experience of attending a paediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in Denmark: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are intended to optimise patient care by recommending care pathways based on the best available research evidence and practice experience. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in healthcare is recommended based on the expectation that it will improve the quality and relevance of outcomes. There is no consensus on what constitutes meaningful and effective PPI in CPG. We will conduct a scoping review to identify and synthesise knowledge in four key areas: who have been the patients and public previously involved in CPG development, how were they recruited, at what stage in the CPG process were they involved and how were they involved. This knowledge will inform a general model of PPI in CPG to inform CPGs development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review using the Methodology for Scoping Reviews refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO). National standards for developing CPGs from Australia, UK, Canada and the USA will also be identified. A forward and backward citation search will be conducted on the included studies and national standards. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by two researchers. Extracted data will include study details, type of clinical guideline and the four key areas, which patients and public were involved, how were they recruited, at what stage were they included and how they were involved. Data will be narratively synthesised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As a scoping review, this study does not require ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Furthermore, we will use the findings from our scoping review to inform future research to fill key evidence gaps identified by this review.
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.