Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36203190›Full record

ArticleBMC rheumatology2022

Patient involvement in basic rheumatology research at Nijmegen: a three year's responsive evaluation of added value, pitfalls and conditions for success.

Maarten P T de Wit, M I Koenders, Y Neijland, F H J van den Hoogen, P M van der Kraan, F A J van de Loo, H Berkers, M Lieon, A van Caam, C van den Ende

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Engaging patient communities in intracranial neuroscience research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Maarten P T de WitStichting Tools, Amsterdam, Netherlands. martinusdewit@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8428-6354
M I Koenders *Experimental Rheumatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Y Neijland *Department of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
F H J van den HoogenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
P M van der KraanExperimental Rheumatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
F A J van de LooExperimental Rheumatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
H BerkersSTAP Panel, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
M LieonSTAP Panel, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
A van CaamExperimental Rheumatology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
C van den EndeDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLSint Maartenskliniek · NLSt. Martinus University · CW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmpirical evidence for effective patient-researcher collaboration in basic research is lacking. This study aims to explore good working models and impact of patient involvement in basic rheumatology research and to identify barriers and facilitators.

methodA responsive evaluation of a three years' participatory research project in a basic and translational laboratory research setting. Several working models for patient involvement were piloted and adapted if considered necessary. The study comprised surveys, interviews, training days, meeting reports, Q-sort exercises and field notes, and regular reflective team sessions with participant involvement. A qualitative analysis using thematic coding focused on impact, barriers and facilitators.

resultsThirteen patient research partners (PRPs) and fifteen basic researchers participated. PRPs experienced basic research as fascinating though complex to understand. Their initial role was mostly listening and asking questions. After several meetings equal and more meaningful relationships emerged. Researchers' motivation increased by listening to patient stories. They learned about disease impact on daily life and to speak in understandable language. This enabled PRPs to learn about research and the pathogenesis of their disease. It inspired them to stay involved over a longer period. After three years, both parties preferred 1:1 contacts over collaboration in team meetings. A common language and respectful communication were important facilitators. Limitations were the complexity of disease processes for patients and the time commitment for researchers. Impact was reported as a sincere dialogue with multiple advantages for patients and researchers, and to a lesser extent than expected on the research process and outcomes.

conclusionPatient involvement contributes to motivating young scientists in performing basic research projects. Patients and researchers valued the benefits of long-term one-on-one collaboration. These benefits outweigh the lack of direct impact on basic research goals and performance. A plain language summary of the abstract is available (as) online Additional file 1.

Indexed as

Basic researchPatient involvementPatient research partnerPreclinical researchResponsive evaluationRheumatology

Identifiers

PMID36203190
PMCPMC9540713
OpenAlexW4302763375

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.