ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Citizen science in osteoarthritis research: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient and stakeholder engagement (PSE) in research is increasingly recognized as essential to producing relevant, ethical, and impactful health studies. While PSE has advanced in many fields, its application in osteoarthritis (OA) research remains poorly defined.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to map the landscape of patient engagement in OA research, identify existing models and frameworks, and assess their characteristics and implementation.
methodsFollowing the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (until March 2025). Eligible studies reported on active patient involvement-beyond participation-in OA research processes. Data extraction and synthesis were performed by independent reviewers.
resultsOf 64 screened records, seven studies met inclusion criteria. These studies highlighted varying degrees of patient involvement, ranging from consultative roles to active co-production. Key enablers included early involvement, clear role definition, adequate training and compensation, and mutual trust. Reported benefits included improved study design, increased relevance and adherence, and enhanced dissemination. However, engagement remained inconsistent, particularly in translational research, and challenges persisted around inclusivity, resource allocation, and methodological standardization.
conclusionsPSE in OA research offers considerable promise but remains underutilized. Structured frameworks and institutional support are needed to move from tokenistic inclusion toward meaningful, equitable partnerships. Patient engagement can humanize research, reduce waste, and bridge the gap between scientific inquiry and lived experience, particularly crucial in chronic, heterogeneous conditions such as OA.
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.