Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349092›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2022

Patient and Public Involvement in Dermatology Research: A Review.

Megan Heague, Chandrima Ray, Joanne Bowers, Jonathan Guckian, Bernd W M Arents, Alison Layton

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Megan HeagueUniversity of Leeds Medical School, Leeds, UK.
Chandrima RayPoznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Joanne BowersHarrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, UK.
Jonathan GuckianDermatology Department, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, Chapeltown Road, Leeds, UK. Jonathan.guckian@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8162-1583
Bernd W M ArentsDutch Association for People with Atopic Dermatitis (VMCE), Nijkerk, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6884-8014
Alison LaytonHull York Medical School, York University, Heslington, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0473-3319
Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PLUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' members of the public, patients, and carers, on both an individual and a group level, rather than simply 'about', or 'for' them. Within dermatology, PPI is increasingly recognised as a vital component of research as it helps to ensure that research remains relevant to the populations we intend to serve. Dermatology scholarship, with its rich psychosocial implications due to the stigma, physical disability, and mental health burdens these conditions may incur, is in a unique position to benefit from PPI to unlock previously inaccessible patient lived experiences or therapeutic consequences. Throughout the rapid growth of PPI, it has been infused throughout the research lifecycle, from design to dissemination and beyond. After first explaining the principles of PPI, we examine the existing evidence base at each research stage to explore whether our specialty has effectively harnessed this approach and to identify any subsequent impact of PPI. Finally, we scrutinise the challenges faced by those implementing PPI in dermatology research.

Indexed as

DermatologyCaregiversHumansMental HealthPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID35349092
PMCPMC8962283
OpenAlexW4221101825

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.