ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2026
Patient and Public Involvement Reporting Consistency: Analysis of 24 Clinical Practice Guidelines From 4 Countries.
Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We compared the reporting of patient and public involvement (PPI) in the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) with the guidance regarding PPI in the auspicing organisation's guideline development manual. Methods: We examined the PPI guidance provided by seven guideline auspicing organisations from four countries, that provided guideline development manuals referencing PPI inclusion in guideline development. We determined whether the auspicing organisations provided guidance on four aspects of PPI critical to understanding the process; (i) which patients and public (PPs) to involve, (ii) how to recruit PPs, (iii) where in the process to involve PPs, and (iv) how PPs should contribute to guideline development. We assessed a random selection of 24 CPGs affiliated with these organisations for consistency of reporting of PPI with the guidance provided. Results: Half (50%) of the auspicing organisations' guideline development manuals provided guidance on all four aspects of PPI. Five of the 24 CPGs (21%) affiliated with auspicing organisations that made reference to PPI in guideline development did not report PPI in their development. Although 79% (19/24) of guidelines did report PPI in their development, only half (10/19) reported PPI that was consistent with the auspicing organisations guidance. Conclusion: Auspicing organisations often do not provide guidance to guideline developers on critical aspects of PPI. Even when auspicing organisations do provide guidance, CPG developers may not report PPI, and/or not report PPI consistent with that guidance. It is unknown whether this is because PPI was not conducted, or because it was conducted, but not reported, or was reported incompletely. Practice Implications: Auspicing organisations need to improve guidance on PPI in guideline development, and CPG developers need to report PPI more diligently when it is done. Understanding guideline developers' motivations for PPI implementation and/or reporting is critical to facilitate improvement in this area.
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.