ArticleBMJ open2026
What makes a good research invitation for patient and public participants in core outcome set studies: a UK-based consensus meeting to develop guidance.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is crucial that the outcomes used in clinical effectiveness studies are relevant to patients. This relevance can be assured by patients participating with other key stakeholders in core outcome set (COS) studies, yet recruiting patients to such studies can be challenging.
objectivesAs no guidance currently exists to help COS developers create good COS invitations for patients, which are usually the first documents patients see when invited to participate in COS studies, the Good Research Invitation Study aimed to produce such guidance.
designConsensus meeting to agree on guidance for COS developers designing research invitations. SETTING AND
participantsInformed by findings from our previous qualitative study of patient and public opinions on COS study invitations, our team, which included a patient research partner, produced an initial set of candidate recommendations. An online consensus meeting was organised in the UK with 13 participants including patient research partners with and without COS study experience, COS developers, a representative from an ethics committee and experts in diversity, marketing and science communication. Through a process of discussion and voting, the initial set of recommendations was refined.
resultsFrom the initial 35 recommendations, consensus meeting participants agreed a final set of 22 recommendations. Some initial recommendations were removed as they were beyond the scope, while others were merged. The finalised recommendations focused on producing and user testing invitations, reaching the audience, engaging potential COS participants and considering what they might find appealing or off-putting, explaining and creating interest in the study, keeping the invitation simple and understandable, considering the amount of information to include and how to present it, alongside ensuring accessibility. Discussion during the meeting highlighted the importance of improving the accessibility of all participant-facing resources in COS studies, not just the invitations.
conclusionThrough consensus, a set of recommendations has been agreed on for use by COS developers to enhance study invitations for patients. Further testing and refinement of the recommendations will improve their utility.
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.