ArticleTrials2026
Public involvement in the design of a complex neurosurgical clinical trial (the GDNF trial) and an associated support package: reflections and recommendations.
Article in Trials, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeurosurgical trials have a high burden on participants, which underscores the need to involve patients, carers, and the public in trial design to ensure their needs and expectations are met. However, there is currently limited guidance on the establishment, retention, and role of patient and public involvement (PPI) groups in neurosurgical trials, beyond generic guidance, which may contribute to the very low use of PPI in surgical trials. To promote meaningful public involvement in neurosurgical trials based on lived experience, we evaluated our public involvement and developed actionable recommendations. We also co-created a novel support package for neurosurgical trial participants.
methodsDuring the planning of a neurosurgical trial, 14 individuals formed a PPI group, including people with Parkinson's, care partners, and charity staff. This reflective evaluation of the group used mixed-methods data collected using the PIRIT Tracking Tool, meeting polls/reflections, and reflective diaries. Our PPI group co-created the resulting reflections and recommendations, which follow the UK Standards for Public Involvement framework. The support package was co-designed in two online workshops, with 12 participants, including people with Parkinson's and care partners.
resultsOur recommendations for meaningful PPI cover inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, governance, communications, and impact. For example, we recommend providing all public contributors with an approachable point of contact, defining a clear plan for evaluation and addressing concerns identified through evaluation, and ensuring co-created tasks have clearly defined, tangible outcomes. The support package for neurosurgical trial participants spans before (psychological assessment and support; trial buddies; videos and written case studies from participants in similar trials), during (medical advice and support; Patient Liaison; psychological support), and after (medical, social, and psychological support) trial support.
conclusionsOur practical, generalisable recommendations and novel participant support package aim to strengthen public involvement and enhance care in neurosurgical trials. The support package needs testing within a trial to determine its feasibility and effectiveness.
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.