ReviewTrials2026
Patient and public involvement (PPI) reporting in maternal and neonatal clinical trials: an exploratory review.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly a research priority encouraged by health research funders. It is difficult to know, however, how prevalent PPI is within research. The aim of this review was to gain a contemporary understanding of the frequency and types of PPI being reported in maternal and neonatal clinical trial reports, and if an increase in PPI reporting was evident over time.
methodsAn exploratory review of maternal and neonatal trial reports published in nine healthcare journals between 2017 and 2022 was undertaken. A search was conducted for eligible trial reports in each journal using SCOPUS, in addition to a manual search of each journal's archive. Once an eligible trial report was identified, a search was conducted for the trial's associated protocol. Both trial documents were reviewed for any information on PPI activity. Descriptive statistics of the included trials' characteristics were produced.
resultsThree hundred and fifty-two trial reports, along with the associated trial protocols for 170 trial reports, were identified and included in the analysis. Of these, 48 trials (14%) reported PPI, either within the main trial record (n = 40) or solely in the trial protocol (n = 8). Twenty (42%) of these trials were conducted in the UK. Thirty-six trials reported PPI contributors in trial design and planning, 29 trials reported PPI during the running of the trial, and 20 trials involved contributors in trial analysis and dissemination. There was no sustained increase in PPI reporting over the included timeframe.
conclusionsThere is minimal reporting of PPI in maternal and neonatal clinical trials, with wide variations in the depth of information provided. PPI reporting guidelines in academic journals may be beneficial in prompting researchers to provide PPI information and to raise awareness of the profile of PPI in maternal and neonatal trial research. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The review was not registered.
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.