Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41943779›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Empowering Patients in Clinical Research: A Narrative Review.

Pooja Sharma, Poonam Bagai, Ashish Bondia, Neha Singhal, Swapna Rohit Sahu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 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.

Pooja SharmaResearch, APAR Health, Gurgaon, IND.
Poonam BagaiResearch, CanKids KidsCan, New Delhi, IND.
Ashish BondiaMedical Affairs, Pfizer Limited, Mumbai, IND.
Neha SinghalGlobal Medical Grants, Pfizer Limited, Mumbai, IND.
Swapna Rohit SahuOncology, Pfizer Limited, Mumbai, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This narrative review focuses on the evolving shift toward patient centricity in Indian clinical research, highlighting persistent gaps in structured patient engagement. The review synthesizes existing literature on patient-centered clinical research and contextualizes these principles through two India-based initiatives: Patient Advocates for Clinical Research (PACER) and Patient Recommendations for Ethical Decentralized and Inclusive Clinical Trials (PREDICT). A targeted literature search was conducted across Medline (via PubMed), Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify published evidence related to patient centricity, patient advocacy, informed consent, and patient-reported outcomes. PACER, a published capacity-building initiative, is discussed as an evidence-based example of structured education for patient advocacy groups. PREDICT, an exploratory multicity stakeholder workshop initiative, is described to illustrate emerging patient perspectives on decentralized and inclusive clinical trial practices, without inference of causal outcomes. Both initiatives seek to address critical gaps in patient inclusion in the Indian clinical research landscape. They empower patients to engage meaningfully in the clinical research process by increasing their understanding of research ethics, informed consent, and the roles of different stakeholders in clinical trial design and conduct. These meetings facilitate patient centricity by identifying adherence barriers, optimizing follow-up processes, and acknowledging patient voices, particularly at trial completion. Rather than evaluating intervention effectiveness, this review integrates published evidence with experiential insights to highlight recurring themes such as patient awareness, communication gaps, consent complexity, and barriers to trial participation. By distinguishing between evidence-supported initiatives and exploratory stakeholder engagement, this work contributes to a clearer conceptual understanding of patient centricity and offers practical considerations to inform future clinical research design and policy discussions in India and beyond.

Indexed as

clinical researchdecentralized trialsindiainformed consentpacerpatient advocacy groupspatient centricitypredict

Identifiers

PMID41943779
PMCPMC13050491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.