ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
Recommendations for the use of clinical outcome assessments in rare disease drug development.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 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
39 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are over 10,000 rare diseases collectively affecting an estimated 250-450 million people globally. While these diseases are rare individually, their cumulative impact on patients, families, healthcare systems, and society is substantial. The incorporation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) in clinical trials can facilitate patient-focused drug development and treatment evaluation by generating meaningful evidence on how patients feel and function. This work was conducted in three phases: a targeted literature review (searched Aug 2025; updated Feb 2026), a multistakeholder workshop (online, Sept 2025) and, finally, an online survey to ratify final recommendations (responses by March 3, 2026). Of 43 individuals invited, 35 (81%) attended the virtual workshop: 11 researchers (including clinical trialists); 12 patients/caregivers; seven industry experts; four individuals from regulatory agencies and one HTA expert. All were based in the UK or USA. Across three sessions, the workshop explored stakeholder perspectives on considerations and appropriate methodological approaches to COA assessment for rare disease drug development to facilitate the generation of recommendations for future use. A threshold of at least 70% votes was chosen, a priori, for inclusion in the final set of recommendations. Here, we describe the potential benefits of COAs, summarise the key challenges, and provide recommendations to facilitate their effective and consistent integration in drug development for rare diseases.
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.