ArticleOxford open immunology2026
Patients know best: DESTINIES Patient Panel appraisal of a novel, risk-stratified approach to COVID-19 disease surveillance in the adult immunosuppressed.
Article in Oxford open immunology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The immunosuppressed are poorly represented in disease surveillance and pharmacovigilance dataflows, proving especially consequential during the COVID-19 pandemic. This mixed methods study recruited a panel of immunosuppressed patients (DESTINIES Patient Panel) to quality assure a new digital phenotype for COVID-19 risk in the adult immunosuppressed (DESTINIES phenotype) prior to its implementation in real-world surveillance. Applying their lived experiences, the DESTINIES Patient Panel met to critique the strategy and structure of the provisional phenotype before voting on its adoption in UK disease surveillance. They did so anonymously. This convening was hosted and recorded on Zoom; Google Forms collected panellist feedback and their final ratifying vote. Feedback was inductively content analysed. 33 patients that adhered to the DESTINIES phenotype definition of immunosuppression submitted their feedback and final vote. Despite obtaining expressions of interest, no person with drug-managed HIV participated; this was a significant limitation given their unique positioning in the phenotype. However, 88% of panellists approved the DESTINIES phenotype for adoption in the UK, 91% agreed it represented a step forward for COVID-19 disease surveillance, and 91% agreed to see it trialled in other surveillance pathways (RSV, pneumonia etc.). Panellist feedback was catalogued by themes of 'Abandonment', 'Accessibility', 'Accuracy', and 'Omission'. The patient voice is often absent in the dataflows purporting to be in their interest. This is an oversight; certain limitations captured in this exercise were unlikely to have surfaced without patient engagement. The DESTINIES phenotype is made more robust by the collective criticism of expert clinicians and patients alike.
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.