Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37197559›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in rare disease

Emerging roles and opportunities for rare disease patient advocacy groups.

Amy M Patterson, Megan O'Boyle, Grace E VanNoy, Kira A Dies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in rare disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 'If You Don't Fight for Yourself, No One Else Will': An In-Depth Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Rare Disorder Care Advocacy in Aotearoa New Zealand.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Amy M PattersonDepartment of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Megan O'BoyleCoalition of Patient Advocacy Groups, Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network, Arlington, VA, USA.
Grace E VanNoyCenter for Mendelian Genomics and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Kira A DiesRosamund Stone Zander Translational Neuroscience Center, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Toward better characterization and clinical trial readiness for targeting neuropsychiatric manifestations in PTEN pathogenic variantsU54NS092090 · NINDS · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI M. Pilar Trelles · 2014 to 2026
$20.1M
NINDS NIH HHS U54 NS092090
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient advocacy groups (PAGs) serve a vital role for rare disease patients and families by providing educational resources, support, and a sense of community. Motivated by patient need, PAGs are increasingly at the forefront of policy, research, and drug development for their disease of interest. Objectives: The study explored the current landscape of PAGs in order to guide new and existing PAGs on available resources and challenges to research engagement. We aim to inform industry, advocates, and healthcare personnel about PAG achievements and ways they are increasingly involved in research. Design: We chose PAGs from the Rare Diseases Clinical Research Network (RDCRN) Coalition for Patient Advocacy Groups (CPAG) listserv and the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) 'Find a patient organization'. Methods: We surveyed eligible PAG leaders about the demographics, goals, and research activities of their organization. For analysis, PAGs were bucketed by size, age, prevalence of disease, and budget. Data were de-identified for cross-tabulation and multinomial logistic regression analysis with R. Results: Research engagement was an extremely important goal for most PAGs (81%), though ultra-rare disease and high-budget PAGs were most likely to cite it as the top priority. In total, 79% reported research engagement in some capacity, including registries, translational research, and clinical trials. 'Ultra-rare' PAGs were less likely than 'rare' PAGs to have an ongoing clinical trial. Conclusion: While PAGs of varying sizes, budgets, and maturity levels reported an interest in research, limited funding and lack of disease awareness continue to create barriers to achieving their goals. While support tools exist to make research more accessible, often their utility depends on the funding, sustainability, maturity of the PAG itself, and the level of investment of collaborators. Despite the availability of current support systems, there are challenges related to both the start-up and sustainability of patient-centric research efforts.

Indexed as

clinical trialdrug developmentpatient advocacy groupregistryresearchsupport

Identifiers

PMID37197559
PMCPMC10184204

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.