ReviewTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease2026
Patient and public involvement in musculoskeletal pain research: using mutual learning to improve research quality.
Review in Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease, 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.
- Put purpose before process: lessons from evaluating patient involvement in governance structures in health research organisations.Research involvement and engagement · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public involvement is standard practice to enhance the quality, equity and impact of musculoskeletal pain research. In this review, we aimed to reflect on our own learning journey across multiple musculoskeletal projects and identify lessons learned from meaningful involvement. We then consider the changes needed at the researcher, funder and institutional levels to support involvement as a driver of relevance and impact. This is a narrative position paper drawing on experiential learning from three musculoskeletal pain studies and ongoing community engagement. We reflected on what we have learned from public contributors in our research, focusing on how involvement reshaped study priorities and tools. Lessons were synthesised to highlight recurring themes, supported by reference to reviews, guidance and empirical studies. Across all projects, several key themes emerged: (1) emphasis on purpose rather than process; (2) co-production and partnership rather than review; (3) flexibility and adaptation rather than predetermined steps; (4) relevant public contributors and partners; (5) focus on 'learning' rather than 'doing'; and (6) approaches to diversity and inclusion. Public partnerships should be a collaborative, transformative, relational and learning-based process that reshapes all aspects of research. Realising this potential might require flexible funding for early engagement, training in facilitation and reflexivity, sustained support beyond the research project to promote impact, and taking steps beyond building more infrastructure towards strengthening the systems that enable involvement to work effectively.
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.