ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2023
The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking the concept of disease modification in an evolving Parkinson's disease treatment landscape.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- Article
- Experiences of patients and public partners in codesign of Lynch Choices™: an evaluation study using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS-22).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Inclusion in neurological research: empowering people living with neurological diseases.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2025Review
- Article
- Correction to: The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Global hepatitis B and D community advisory board: expectations, challenges, and lessons learned.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- A critical reflection on using the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to evaluate patient and family partners' engagement in dementia research.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development.
methodsIn partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson's UK and the Parkinson's Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson's and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments.
resultsInvolving people with Parkinson's in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson's community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson's and clinicians.
conclusionsConducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson's.
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.