ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating public and patient involvement in interventional research-A newly developed checklist (EPPIIC).
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial evaluating the Cognitive Occupation-Based programme for people with Multiple Sclerosis (COB-MS).Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public and patient involvement (PPI) has been identified as an increasingly desired and, often, required component of trial methodology-leading to higher quality, more accessible and relevant clinical research, alongside increased recruitment, funding success and insight into research impact. However, despite the great variety of frameworks and checklists available for assessing PPI, most are limited with respect to important features (e.g. applicable in specific contexts only, fail to clarify what should be assessed and reported, lack the necessary comprehensiveness or are biased in favour of researcher reporting). Thus, the current research aimed to address such limitations through the development of a new checklist, the EPPIIC, through review, thematic analysis and 'meta-evaluation' in conjunction with PPI engagement. Upon completion of the EPPIIC, three thematic 'sub-scales' emerged: (1) Policy & Practice, (2) Participatory Culture and (3) Influence & Impact. All findings are presented and discussed in light of theory and research. Notably, findings recommend EPPIIC as a useful means of assessing PPI in future trials.
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.