ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
"I am struggling to find an explicit task"-a midterm evaluation of patient research partner involvement in HIPPOCRATES translational research.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The HIPPOCRATES project is a 5-year, international research partnership dedicated to studying and treating psoriatic disease. Integrating Patient Research Partners (PRPs) into large scientific groups, particularly those heavily focused on preclinical or laboratory-based science, is challenging. This paper details a midterm evaluation of how effectively PRPs have been engaged in the HIPPOCRATES project. Methods: Our evaluation used a mixed-method approach comprising 7 dedicated reflective PRP meetings, 2 midterm surveys among PRPs and researchers, a modified World Café discussion, and 5 structured dialogue meetings. We used descriptive statistics and pragmatic constant comparative analysis. Results: Substantial PRP input occurred early during the project's presubmission phase, which resulted in a formal strategy for patient involvement. However, 3 years after approval, significant differences emerged between researcher and PRP perspectives. Compared with researchers, PRPs reported more challenges, had differing expectations, and perceived a lower overall impact. Although PRPs were highly motivated at the start and contributed significantly to clinical components, motivation decreased for some regarding the laboratory components. This was attributed to highly technical language, long contract negotiations, and a lack of clear opportunities for input or tangible results. Consortium members collaboratively agreed upon a set of specific changes during the 5 dialogue sessions. Conclusions: Despite the early and substantial involvement of PRPs in the initial study design, the PRPs themselves rated their influence on HIPPOCRATES lower than the researchers did. Further evaluation over the next 2 years will show whether the jointly developed solutions successfully enhance their impact on future research outcomes.
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.