SynthesisBMJ open2025
Research quality and dissemination of paediatric randomised controlled trials with and without patient and family engagement: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trends in patient and public involvement in health research 2000-2024.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Patient and Public Involvement in Paediatric Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trials: A Mixed Methods Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAuthentic patient and family engagement in child health research is defined as researchers working in partnership with patients and families on all aspects of the research process, including refining the research question, tailoring the intervention, devising study procedures and disseminating study findings. While there is good evidence of a positive impact of patient engagement on the research process, on research teams and on patient partners, there are few empirical data on the impact of patient and family engagement on research quality and dissemination. We conducted a systematic review to compare research quality and dissemination metrics for paediatric randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that engaged patients and families in the research process with trials that did not.
designSystematic review using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search to identify RCTs. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE from 1 January 2011 through to 31 December 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included RCTs involving children and youth (<18 years of age) published in DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Trials were categorised as those engaging patients and families (PE+) and those that did not (PE-). A standardised review form was used to confirm trial eligibility and extract data on study characteristics. Two reviewers independently screened and sorted RCTs into PE+ and PE- groups, extracted data and assessed research quality using the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (based on seven methodological criteria). The dissemination of RCT findings was determined using measures of academic and non-academic citation collected from Web of Science and Scopus.
resultsFrom 2011 to 2020,
conclusionsDespite increasing interest in patient and family engagement in child health research, this review showed that few paediatric RCTs report patient engagement activity. Research quality was similar for trials engaging patients and families compared with those that did not. Patient and family engagement in the trial, however, was associated with higher metrics for social media attention, compared with trials with no engagement.
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.