SynthesisPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
Patient and Public Involvement in Pharmacoepidemiological Research: An Environmental Scan of an Emerging Area.
Synthesis in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in research is required to improve the relevance, feasibility, and interpretability. However, research on PPIs in pharmacoepidemiology (PE) is still limited. This study aimed to provide an overview of PPI implementation in pharmacoepidemiology through an environmental scan.
methodsThe environmental scan combined systematic reviews and expert interviews. A systematic review was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2023, to identify PE studies in which PPIs were mentioned. An additional review covered British Medical Journal's (BMJ) original articles from January 1, 2019, to June 30, 2023, via a similar method. In parallel, a cross-sectional study was conducted with a standardized questionnaire for French PE research teams, involving interviews via videoconference.
resultsWe identified 3615 references for screening, among which 232 were selected for full-text screening. However, no studies have reported the use of PPIs in PE studies. The additional BMJ review identified 1058 references, 74 of which met the full-text selection criteria, and eight were included. Of 13 French PE research teams surveyed, three had prior PPI experience, and 12 affirmed the relevance of PPI in PE. The respondents identified barriers such as PE's complexity (n = 9). They suggested training for patients (n = 9) and collaboration with specialist teams (n = 5) to facilitate PPI.
conclusionOur environmental scan highlighted the emergence and relevance of PPIs in PE studies, even though they are still uncommon. Tools are needed to acculture and assist PE researchers in engaging in PPIs.
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.