Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41574239›Full record

ReviewClinical parkinsonism & related disorders2026

Explore thyself: is it time for metacognition screening in clinical trials?

Andrew McGarry, Scott Y H Kim, Peggy Auinger, Charles Venuto, John Gaughan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Andrew McGarryCooper University Healthcare at Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.
Scott Y H KimDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Peggy AuingerCenter for Health and Technology, Rochester, NY, USA.
Charles VenutoCenter for Health and Technology, Rochester, NY, USA.
John GaughanCooper University Healthcare at Rowan University, Camden, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Participant self-report has become increasingly important in the design of clinical trials for Parkinson's Disease (PD), resonating with the general sense that a person's account of their experience should be a prime consideration in evaluating the effects of therapeutics. Typical study designs look to minimize the effects of comorbidities like substantial behavioral or cognitive disturbances that are expected to put accurate self-report at risk. However, little attention has been paid to the anticipated or actual ability of otherwise eligible PD study participants to accurately convey their experiences during participation. Metacognition, the ability to identify and reflect on one's thought processes and output, would seem to be instrumental for the careful evaluation of therapeutics using self-report but is not directly assessed during screening for clinical studies. Evidence suggests metacognition may be impaired in participants expected to be enrolled, suggesting the assessment of metacognitive ability during screening or even study conduct may be a worthwhile evolution in study design. Future directions include modeling performance of participants with a range of metacognitive capabilities to understand its influence on outcomes in both active and placebo groups, and possibly simple tools or tests to assess study candidates at risk for poor metacognitive performance in trials that prioritize self-report.

Identifiers

PMID41574239
PMCPMC12819341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.