Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740806›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025

Patient involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines in Germany-A meta-research study.

Stefanie Pfisterer-Heise, Clara Orduhan, Käthe Goossen, Jessica Breuing, Irma Hellbrecht, Sebastian von Peter, Corinna Schaefer, Dawid Pieper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

8 authors.

Stefanie Pfisterer-HeiseCenter for Health Services Research Brandenburg Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg Rüdersdorf Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0138-4865
Clara OrduhanCenter for Health Services Research Brandenburg Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg Rüdersdorf Germany.
Käthe GoossenDepartment for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health Herdecke University Witten Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1436-1144
Jessica BreuingDepartment for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health Herdecke University Witten Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3433-6464
Irma HellbrechtDepartment for Evidence Based Health Services Research, Department of Medicine Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health Herdecke University Witten Germany.
Sebastian von PeterDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Immanuel Klinik Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane Rüdersdorf Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8187-5444
Corinna SchaeferGerman Agency for Quality in Medicine Berlin Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4132-5528
Dawid PieperCenter for Health Services Research Brandenburg Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg Rüdersdorf Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0715-5182

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Patient involvement (PI) is a key element of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, PI in CPGs often falls short of quality standards. For evidence- and consensus-based CPGs in Germany, a study in 2018 showed that a mere 58% had included a patient (participation), 56% with voting right. We aimed to provide an update on whether and how patients were involved in CPGs (participation and consultation), on the availability of patient versions (PVGs) (communication) and to investigate whether CPGs in Germany adhere to the RIGHT checklist. Methods: An electronic search on the Register of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies was performed. Eligibility criteria were defined a priori. We included evidence- and consensus-based CPGs valid on 31 March 2023. A data extraction form including 35 items was designed and piloted. Five researchers independently extracted data from CPGs, methodology reports and PVGs. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: The search identified 135 CPGs meeting the eligibility criteria. Participation has increased to 79% (107/135 CPGs), in 73% of CPGs (98/135) with voting right. Participation was more common in CPGs for chronic than acute conditions (76/86 CPGs, 88% chronic vs. 23/38 CPGs, 61% acute). Consultation was scarcely employed (3/135 CPGs, 2%). Communication, operationalised as PVGs being available on the internet, increased from 33% (35/105) in 2018 to 43% (58/135) in 2023. 26% of CPGs (28/107) with participation reported on patients' selection as required by the RIGHT checklist. Discussion: PI has improved, although around 20% of CPGs were still developed without participation. This applies in particular to CPGs on acute conditions where PI should be strengthened. At the same time, innovative and efficient methods for consultation and for evaluating patients' impact are required. Moreover, communication should be expanded. To further improve transparency in CPGs, guideline development groups should specifically report on patients' recruitment and selection.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelineconsultationGermanyparticipationpatient involvement

Identifiers

PMID42740806
PMCPMC13563351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.