ArticleBMJ open2026
Patient and public involvement and engagement in target trial emulation framework: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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.
- Methodological innovations to advance substance use disorder research: Proceedings of a NIDA workshop on target trial emulation and translational testing of digital health tools.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTarget trial emulation (TTE) has emerged as a methodological framework to strengthen causal inference from observational health data when randomised controlled trials are infeasible. The credibility of TTE studies depends not only on rigorous design and transparent reporting, but also on their relevance and acceptability to patients and the public. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) has been shown to enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of health research by shaping research priorities, informing study design and ensuring outcomes reflect patient perspectives. However, the extent to which PPIE has been incorporated into TTE studies remains unclear. This scoping review aims to systematically map the use and reporting of PPIE in published TTE studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) from January 2011 to present, limited to English-language publications. Eligible studies will be studies that self-identify as using the TTE framework and report empirical analyses of health outcomes using observational or trial data. We will exclude protocols, methodological or simulation-only studies, preprints, conference abstracts and grey literature. Three reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, and then full texts, with disagreements resolved by discussion or adjudication. Data extraction will include study characteristics and PPIE information guided by the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form checklist. Findings will be summarised using descriptive statistics, tables, figures and narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required, as this review will use publicly available data. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conferences.
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.