SynthesisBMJ open2023
Systematic review on the involvement and engagement of patients as advisers for the organisation of organ transplantation services.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aims to derive practical lessons from publications on patient involvement and engagement in the organisation of organ transplantation services.
designThis systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Inclusion criteria for the analysis of publications in English cited in the databases PubMed and Web of Science until 6 December 2022 required that patients participated as advisers in the organisation of organ transplantation services. Quality assessment was performed using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) 2 small form and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool for the assessment of the risks of bias.
resultsDeployed search strings identified 2263 records resulting in a total of 11 articles. The aims and strategies, deployed methods, observed effects, observed barriers and proposed improvements for the future varied vastly. All reported that well-developed programmes involving and engaging patients at an organisational level provide additional benefits for patients and foster patient-centred care. Lessons learnt include: (1) to empower patients, the information provided to them should be individualised to prioritise their needs; (2) financial as well as organisational resources are important to successfully implement patient involvement and engagement; (3) systematic feedback from patients in organisational structures to health providers is required to improve clinical workflows and (4) the consideration of ethical issues and the relationship between investigators and participating patients should be clarified and reported.
conclusionsActionable management recommendations could be derived. The quantitative impact on clinical outcome and economic clinical process improvements remains to be investigated. Study quality can be improved using the GRIPP 2 guidance and the CASP tool. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022186467.
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.