Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42857304›Full record

ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026

Perspectives of consumer involvement in pre-clinical musculoskeletal research: a cross-sectional survey of consumers and community members.

Megan H Ross, Camille Maeva Thomas, Bec Jenkinson, Emmah Doig, Christopher B Little, Annette Annie McPherson, Christine Beanland, Paul Hodges, Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Basic Science Special Interest Group, Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Basic Science Special Interest Group

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Megan H RossRECOVER Injury Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5467-3559
Camille Maeva ThomasCentre for Innovation in Pain and Health Research (CIPHeR), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5002-7639
Bec JenkinsonUQ Clinical Trials Capability, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-8898
Emmah DoigSchool of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7020-053X
Christopher B LittleRaymond Purves Bone and Joint Research Laboratories, Kolling Institute, St. Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0353-7634
Annette Annie McPhersonAustralia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Consumer Advisory Group, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christine BeanlandAustralia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Basic Science Special Interest Group, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul HodgesCentre for Innovation in Pain and Health Research (CIPHeR), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1206-9107
Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Basic Science Special Interest Group
Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network (ANZMUSC) Basic Science Special Interest Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To examine how consumers are involved in pre-clinical musculoskeletal research and explore their perspectives on involvement. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted to explore consumer involvement in pre-clinical musculoskeletal research and perspectives on involvement. Eligible participants were individuals with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions or their carers, recruited via consumer networks in Australia and New Zealand. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected using structured and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis were used to analyse responses. Results: A total of 166 participants ( Conclusion: Consumers are willing and perceive that they can contribute meaningfully to pre-clinical research when appropriately supported. Aligning involvement opportunities with consumer interests and providing tailored support ensures impactful partnerships.

Indexed as

consumer and community involvementmusculoskeletalpainpatient and public involvementpre-clinical research

Identifiers

PMID42857304
PMCPMC13652147

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.