ArticleScientific reports2024
The PERMIT guidelines for designing and implementing all stages of personalised medicine research.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Personalised medicine (PM) research programmes represent the modern paradigm of complex cross-disciplinary research, integrating innovative methodologies and technologies. Methodological research is required to ensure that these programmes generate robust and reproducible evidence. The PERMIT project developed methodological recommendations for each stage of the PM research pipeline. A common methodology was applied to develop the recommendations in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Each stage was addressed by a dedicated working group, specializing in the subject matter. A series of scoping reviews that mapped the methods used in PM research and a gap analysis were followed by working sessions and workshops where field experts analyzed the gaps and developed recommendations. Through collaborative writing and consensus building exercises, the final recommendations were defined. They provide guidance for the design, implementation and evaluation of PM research, from patient and omics data collection and sample size calculation to the selection of the most appropriate stratification approach, including machine learning modeling, the development and application of reliable preclinical models, and the selection and implementation of the most appropriate clinical trial design. The dissemination and implementation of these recommendations by all stakeholders can improve the quality of PM research, enhance the robustness of evidence, and improve patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.