Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34280783›Full record

ArticleEBioMedicine2021

Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: A scoping review.

Grace Fox, Dean A Fergusson, Zeinab Daham, Mark Youssef, Madison Foster, Evelyn Poole, Ayni Sharif, Dawn P Richards, Kathryn Hendrick, Asher A Mendelson and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EBioMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
18.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Grace FoxClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Zeinab DahamClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada; Ottawa Stroke Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Canada.
Mark YoussefFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Madison FosterClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Evelyn PooleClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Ayni SharifClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Dawn P RichardsPatient Partner, Five02 Labs Incorporated, Canada.
Kathryn HendrickPatient Partner, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Asher A MendelsonSection of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Canada.
Kimberly F MacalaDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospital, University of Alberta, Canada; Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Royal Alexandra Hospital, University of Alberta, Canada.
Zarah MonfarediFaculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
Joshua MontroyClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
Kirsten M FiestDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary & Alberta Health Services, Canada.
Justin PresseauClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Canada; School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
Manoj M LaluClinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, PO Box 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada; Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Canada. Electronic address: mlalu@toh.ca.
Ottawa Hospital · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CAAlberta Health Services · CASimon Fraser University · CAUniversity of Alberta · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background'Patient engagement' involves meaningful collaboration between researchers and 'patient partners' to co-create research. It helps ensure that research being conducted is relevant to its ultimate end-users. Although patient engagement within clinical research has been well documented, the prevalence and effects of patient engagement in translational preclinical laboratory research remain unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to present current patient engagement activities reported in preclinical laboratory research.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature were systematically searched from inception to April 2021. Studies that described or investigated patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research were included. Patient engagement activities where patients (i.e. patients, family members, caregivers or community members) provided input, or consultation on at least one element of the research process were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and organized thematically.

findings32 reports were included (30 primary studies, 1 narrative review, and 1 researcher guide). Most studies engaged patients at the education or priority setting stages (n=26). The most frequently reported benefit of patient engagement was 'providing a mutual learning opportunity'. Reported barriers to patient engagement reflected concerns around 'differences in knowledge and research experience' and how this may challenge communication and limit meaningful collaboration.

interpretationPatient engagement is feasible and beneficial for preclinical laboratory research. Future work should focus on assessing the impacts of patient engagement in this area of research.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

HumansLaboratories, ClinicalPatient ParticipationTranslational Science, BiomedicalBasic sciencePatient engagementPreclinicalScoping reviewTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID34280783
PMCPMC8318845
OpenAlexW3185944714

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.