ArticleJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2026
Identifying patient-centered outcomes in progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis: Results from IMPACT.
Article in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn rare diseases like progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis (PFIC), lack of evidence results in treatment variability and strategies for families to engage care teams to understand how variability affects overall health are unknown. Patient-centered comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been identified as an approach to address these challenges, but CER-specific knowledge and infrastructure are lacking. We present the results from IMPACT (Identifying research targets by Merging Patient And Clinician Treatment information), a 2-year capacity-building project for patient-centered CER.
methodsSix learning modules were adapted from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute to teach participants about CER and elicit feedback for patient-specific CER priorities and processes in PFIC. Participants completed modules and engaged in focus groups (12 virtual and in-person focus groups). Engagement quality was assessed using a validated patient engagement evaluation tool.
resultsParticipation in learning modules varied between 16 and 31 patient/family participants (mean 22), and 5 and 8 clinicians/researchers (mean 5.3). Focus group participation varied between 7 and 35 patient/family participants (mean 13.1) and 3-35 clinicians/researchers (mean 7.3). Collated data enabled develop of (1) the treatment experience app (TEA): a web-based, community-built information tool to display relevant, research-based, lay language therapeutic approaches, augmented by patient experience information and (2) the IMPACT roadmap, a manual for future PFIC patient-centered research. Engagement assessments demonstrate consistently strong and steadily improving levels of engagement.
conclusionsIMPACT successfully engaged key stakeholders to build shared understanding of patient-centered CER, define PFIC-specific CER targets, and develop strategies for equitable and sustainable patient-researcher partnerships.
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.