Assessing the impact, uptake and use of reporting guidelines for patient and public involvement in research: GRIPP2-study protocol for a meta-research project

Vista sencilla de ítem
dc.contributor.affiliationInstituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento
dc.contributor.authorCatala-Lopez, Ferranes_ES
dc.contributor.authorGanuza, Ernestoes_ES
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Arroyo, Adolfoes_ES
dc.contributor.authorPerna, Robertaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorTricco, Andrea C.es_ES
dc.contributor.authorHutton, Brianes_ES
dc.contributor.authorColin, Constancees_ES
dc.contributor.authorTejedor-Romero, Lauraes_ES
dc.contributor.authorRidao, Manueles_ES
dc.contributor.authorBautista-Puig, Nuriaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorTabarés-Seisdedos, Rafaeles_ES
dc.contributor.authorAleixandre-Benavent, Rafael
dc.contributor.authorNafria-Escalera, Begonyaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorStaniszewska, Sophiees_ES
dc.contributor.authorMoher, Davides_ES
dc.contributor.funderMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovaciónes_ES
dc.contributor.funderConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicases_ES
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-26T12:35:05Z
dc.date.available2026-05-26T12:35:05Z
dc.date.issued2026-04-22es_ES
dc.description.abstract[EN] Introduction Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised for its potential to enhance feasibility, improve relevance and foster collaboration at different stages of a study. Reporting guidelines such as GRIPP2 (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) have been developed to help improve completeness and transparency in PPI reporting. This meta-research project aims to assess the impact of the GRIPP2 reporting guidelines through citation and alternative metrics, analysing its uptake or adoption across authors, institutions, journals and countries, as well as its practical application in reporting PPI within diverse research designs. Methods and analysis This protocol for a meta-research project consists of two studies. In Study 1, we will conduct a search across Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar to identify all publications citing the GRIPP2 guidelines (planned for July 2026 using forward citation analysis). Retrieved records will undergo standardised processing and structured de-duplication to ensure each citing article is represented once. Following de-duplication, data from unique citations-including title, publication year, journal, subject category, keywords, document type, citations, authors' names, institutional affiliations, country and funding sources-will be collected. Citation counts, alternative metrics (eg, mentions in policy documents, news media) and knowledge production patterns across authors, institutions, journals and countries will be analysed to assess GRIPP2's impact and uptake of the guidelines. Descriptive analyses will be conducted (including the number of papers, citations, authors, countries, journals, keywords, funding, field distribution and main collaboration metrics). Network analyses will be carried out to study the structure of collaborations. In Study 2, we will evaluate a random sample of 300 research articles citing GRIPP2, including randomised trials (n=100), systematic reviews with meta-analyses (n=100) and health economic evaluations (n=100). If an insufficient number of citing studies are available within these categories, we will include additional study types identified in Study 1 (eg, study protocols, observational studies, mixed-methods or qualitative research studies and other types of reviews). Reporting and PPI practices in each article will be extracted by at least two researchers using a standardised data extraction form. Information on general, methodological and PPI items will be analysed and reported, stratified by study design (eg, randomised trials vs systematic reviews vs health economic evaluations). Ethics and dissemination Due to the nature of the proposed study, no ethical approval will be required. All data will be deposited in a cross-disciplinary public repository. It is anticipated the study findings could be relevant to a variety of audiences. Study findings will be disseminated at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethodSes_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitationCatala-Lopez, F.; Ganuza, E.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.; Perna, R.; Tricco, AC.; Hutton, B.; Colin, C.... (2026). Assessing the impact, uptake and use of reporting guidelines for patient and public involvement in research: GRIPP2-study protocol for a meta-research project. BMJ Open. 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-115612es_ES
dc.description.issue4es_ES
dc.description.referencesHeigl, F., Kieslinger, B., Paul, K. T., Uhlik, J., & Dörler, D. (2019). Toward an international definition of citizen science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(17), 8089-8092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1903393116es_ES
dc.description.referencesAuerbach, J., Barthelmess, E. L., Cavalier, D., Cooper, C. B., Fenyk, H., Haklay, M., Hulbert, J. M., Kyba, C. C. M., Larson, L. R., Lewandowski, E., & Shanley, L. (2019). The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(31), 15336-15337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909278116es_ES
dc.description.referencesFiske, A., Prainsack, B., & Buyx, A. (2019). Meeting the needs of underserved populations: setting the agenda for more inclusive citizen science of medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(9), 617-622. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105253es_ES
dc.description.referencesGreenhalgh, T., Hinton, L., Finlay, T., Macfarlane, A., Fahy, N., Clyde, B., & Chant, A. (2019). Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expectations, 22(4), 785-801. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888es_ES
dc.description.referencesGrotz J , Ledgard M , Poland F . Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.es_ES
dc.description.referencesTurk A , Boylan A , Locock L . Oxford: University of Oxford; A researcher’s guide to patient and public involvement, 2017. Available: https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/A-Researchers-Guide-to-PPI.pdf [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesManafo, E., Petermann, L., Mason-Lai, P., & Vandall-Walker, V. (2018). Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of patient engagement in health research. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0282-4es_ES
dc.description.referencesStrategy for Patient-Oriented Research . Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Available: https://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesForsythe, L. P., Carman, K. L., Szydlowski, V., Fayish, L., Davidson, L., Hickam, D. H., Hall, C., Bhat, G., Neu, D., Stewart, L., Jalowsky, M., Aronson, N., & Anyanwu, C. U. (2019). Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Affairs, 38(3), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067es_ES
dc.description.referencesBrett, J., Staniszewska, S., Mockford, C., Herron‐Marx, S., Hughes, J., Tysall, C., & Suleman, R. (2012). Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expectations, 17(5), 637-650. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.xes_ES
dc.description.referencesNorburn, L., & Thomas, L. (2020). Expertise, experience, and excellence. Twenty years of patient involvement in health technology assessment at NICE: an evolving story. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462320000860es_ES
dc.description.referencesRichards, D. P., Bowden, J., Gee, P., Haagaard, A., Kothari, A., McKinnon, A., Primeau, C. A., Tricco, A. C., Wang, E., Woolley, K. L., & Li, L. C. (2025). The ultimate power play in research - partnering with patients, partnering with power. Research Involvement and Engagement, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-025-00745-9es_ES
dc.description.referencesStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., Entwistle, A., Littlejohns, P., Morris, C., Suleman, R., Thomas, V., & Tysall, C. (2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ, j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453es_ES
dc.description.referencesStaniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., Entwistle, A., Littlejohns, P., Morris, C., Suleman, R., Thomas, V., & Tysall, C. (2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Research Involvement and Engagement, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2es_ES
dc.description.referencesBrett, J., Staniszewska, S., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., Entwistle, A. R., Littlejohns, P., Morris, C., Suleman, R., Thomas, V., & Tysall, C. (2017). Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. BMJ Open, 7(10), e016948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016948es_ES
dc.description.referencesThe BMJ . Patient and public partnership, Available: https://authors.bmj.com/policies/patient-public-partnership/ [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesRichards, T., Schroter, S., Price, A., & Godlee, F. (2018). Better together: patient partnership in medical journals. BMJ, k3798. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3798es_ES
dc.description.referencesSaigle, V., Miller, J., Dumez, V., & Patrick, K. (2021). Embedding patient voices in <i>CMAJ</i>. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 193(27), E1046-E1047. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.211092es_ES
dc.description.referencesCMAJ . CMAJ’s Statement of Purpose for Patient Engagement, Available: https://www.cmaj.ca/statement-purpose-patient-engagement [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesPrice, A., Schroter, S., Snow, R., Hicks, M., Harmston, R., Staniszewska, S., Parker, S., & Richards, T. (2018). Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open, 8(3), e020452. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020452es_ES
dc.description.referencesLang, I., King, A., Jenkins, G., Boddy, K., Khan, Z., & Liabo, K. (2022). How common is patient and public involvement (PPI)? Cross-sectional analysis of frequency of PPI reporting in health research papers and associations with methods, funding sources and other factors. BMJ Open, 12(5), e063356. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063356es_ES
dc.description.referencesBenizri, N., Hallot, S., Burns, K., & Goldfarb, M. (2022). Patient and Family Representation in Randomized Clinical Trials Published in 3 Medical and Surgical Journals: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open, 5(9), e2230858. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.30858es_ES
dc.description.referencesGamble, C., Dudley, L., Allam, A., Bell, P., Goodare, H., Hanley, B., Preston, J., Walker, A., Williamson, P., & Young, B. (2014). Patient and public involvement in the early stages of clinical trial development: a systematic cohort investigation. BMJ Open, 4(7), e005234. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005234es_ES
dc.description.referencesHusson, M., Dechartres, A., Ramdjee, B., Diverres, M., Zejli, T., L’Hénaff, M., Jehanno, E., Tubach, F., & Caille, A. (2023). Patient and public involvement is suboptimal in randomized controlled trials addressing a chronic condition. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 160, 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.06.012es_ES
dc.description.referencesVanneste, A., Wens, I., Sinnaeve, P., Louati, C., Huys, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Adriaenssens, T. (2025). Evolution of reported patient and public involvement over time in randomised controlled trials in major medical journals and in their protocols: meta-epidemiological evaluation. BMJ, e082697. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-082697es_ES
dc.description.referencesCrocker, J. C., Ricci-Cabello, I., Parker, A., Hirst, J. A., Chant, A., Petit-Zeman, S., Evans, D., & Rees, S. (2018). Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, k4738. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k4738es_ES
dc.description.referencesMoher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., Seely, D., Sampson, M., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Miller, D., Simera, I., Grimshaw, J., & Hoey, J. (2011). Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(7), 718-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013es_ES
dc.description.referencesSchlussel, M. M., Sharp, M. K., de Beyer, J. A., Kirtley, S., Logullo, P., Dhiman, P., MacCarthy, A., Koroleva, A., Speich, B., Bullock, G. S., Moher, D., & Collins, G. S. (2023). Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 159, 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.018es_ES
dc.description.referencesStevens, A., Shamseer, L., Weinstein, E., Yazdi, F., Turner, L., Thielman, J., Altman, D. G., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Palepu, A., Schulz, K. F., & Moher, D. (2014). Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals” endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ, 348(jun25 2), g3804-g3804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3804es_ES
dc.description.referencesPussegoda, K., Turner, L., Garritty, C., Mayhew, A., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., Boutron, I., Sarkis-Onofre, R., Bjerre, L. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2017). Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2es_ES
dc.description.referencesNguyen, P.-Y., Kanukula, R., McKenzie, J. E., Alqaidoom, Z., Brennan, S. E., Haddaway, N. R., Hamilton, D. G., Karunananthan, S., McDonald, S., Moher, D., Nakagawa, S., Nunan, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V. A., & Page, M. J. (2022). Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: cross sectional meta-research study. BMJ, 379, e072428. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072428es_ES
dc.description.referencesCatalá-López, F., Ridao, M., Tejedor-Romero, L., Caulley, L., Hutton, B., Husereau, D., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Bernal-Delgado, E., Drummond, M. F., & Moher, D. (2024). Transparency, openness, and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 165, 111208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.024es_ES
dc.description.referencesCaulley, L., Catalá-López, F., Whelan, J., Khoury, M., Ferraro, J., Cheng, W., Husereau, D., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2020). Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 122, 87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.006es_ES
dc.description.referencesCaulley, L., Cheng, W., Catalá-López, F., Whelan, J., Khoury, M., Ferraro, J., Husereau, D., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2020). Citation impact was highly variable for reporting guidelines of health research: a citation analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 127, 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.013es_ES
dc.description.referencesCatalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Page, M. J., Castelló-Cogollos, L., Hutton, B., Ridao, M., Tabarés-Seisdedos, R., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Moher, D. (2023). A cross-sectional analysis identified co-authorship networks and scientific collaboration on reporting guidelines for health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 157, 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.001es_ES
dc.description.referencesShamseer, L., Hopewell, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & Schulz, K. F. (2016). Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014. Trials, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1408-zes_ES
dc.description.references, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1es_ES
dc.description.referencesShamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & . (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349(jan02 1), g7647-g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647es_ES
dc.description.referencesWu. (2018). Interpretation of reporting guidance for research involvement of patients and the public (GRIPP2). Chin J Evid-Based Med. 18.es_ES
dc.description.referencesCatalá-López, F., Ganuza, E., Staniszewska, S., Perna, R., Tejedor-Romero, L., Colin, C., Ridao, M., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Tabarés-Seisdedos, R., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Hutton, B., & Moher, D. (2026). GRIPP2: adaptación al español de las guías para mejorar la presentación de la participación de pacientes y ciudadanos en la investigación. Gaceta Sanitaria, 102564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2026.102564es_ES
dc.description.referencesKulkarni, A. V. (2009). Comparisons of Citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for Articles Published in General Medical Journals. JAMA, 302(10), 1092. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1307es_ES
dc.description.referencesMartín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002es_ES
dc.description.referencesHarzing AW . Publish or perish (version 8) [computer software]. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd; 2021. Available: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesCatalá-López, F., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Hutton, B., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., & Moher, D. (2014). Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis. BMC Medicine, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-15es_ES
dc.description.referencesCatalá-López, F., Aleixandre-Benavent, R., Caulley, L., Hutton, B., Tabarés-Seisdedos, R., Moher, D., & Alonso-Arroyo, A. (2020). Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3944-9es_ES
dc.description.referencesSzomszor, M., & Adie, E. (2022). Overton: A bibliometric database of policy document citations. Quantitative Science Studies, 3(3), 624-650. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00204es_ES
dc.description.referencesHaunschild. (2025). The influence of public policy and administration expertise on policy: an empirical study. Evid Policy. 21.es_ES
dc.description.referencesSebo, P. (2021). Using genderize.io to infer the gender of first names: how to improve the accuracy of the inference. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(4). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1252es_ES
dc.description.referencesNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) . Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE, 2013.es_ES
dc.description.referencesGuyatt G , Rennie D , Meade MO , et al . Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015.es_ES
dc.description.referencesHopewell, S., Chan, A.-W., Collins, G. S., Hróbjartsson, A., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., Bhandari, N., Butcher, N. J., Campbell, M. K., Chidebe, R. C. W., Elbourne, D., Farmer, A., Fergusson, D. A., Golub, R. M., Goodman, S. N., et al. (2025). CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. The Lancet, 405(10489), 1633-1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00672-5es_ES
dc.description.referencesPage, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4es_ES
dc.description.referencesHusereau, D., Drummond, M., Augustovski, F., de Bekker-Grob, E., Briggs, A. H., Carswell, C., Caulley, L., Chaiyakunapruk, N., Greenberg, D., Loder, E., Mauskopf, J., Mullins, C. D., Petrou, S., Pwu, R.-F., & Staniszewska, S. (2022). Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ, 376, e067975. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067975es_ES
dc.description.referencesInternational Association for Public Participation . IAP2 Public Participation Pillars, Available: https://www.iap2.org/page/pillars [Accessed 17 Mar 2026].es_ES
dc.description.referencesSmits, D.-W., van Meeteren, K., Klem, M., Alsem, M., & Ketelaar, M. (2020). Designing a tool to support patient and public involvement in research projects: the Involvement Matrix. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00188-4es_ES
dc.description.references, Hoekstra, F., Mrklas, K. J., Khan, M., McKay, R. C., Vis-Dunbar, M., Sibley, K. M., Nguyen, T., Graham, I. D., & Gainforth, H. L. (2020). A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9es_ES
dc.description.referencesLopez Gousset, V., Silveira Silva, A., Holtorf, A.-P., Toledo-Chávarri, A., & Single, A. (2024). The three-domain impact framework for characterizing impact of patient involvement in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462324000400es_ES
dc.description.referencesStoll, M., Kerwer, M., Lieb, K., & Chasiotis, A. (2022). Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0268789. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268789es_ES
dc.description.referencesNewman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl_1), 5200-5205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100es_ES
dc.description.referencesBarabási AL . Network Science. Cambridge University Press, Ltd: Cambridge, 2016.es_ES
dc.description.referencesBörner K , Polley DE . Visual Insights: A Practical Guide to Making Sense of Data. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2014.es_ES
dc.description.referencesBatagelj V , Mrvar A . Pajek 3.10 [Computer Software]. Program for Large Network Analysis. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, 2013.es_ES
dc.description.referencesWeschke, S., Franzen, D. L., Sierawska, A. K., Bonde, L.-S., Strech, D., & Schorr, S. G. (2023). Reporting of patient involvement: a mixed-methods analysis of current practice in health research publications using a targeted search strategy. BMJ Open, 13(1), e064170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064170es_ES
dc.description.referencesPatsopoulos, N. A. (2005). Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences. JAMA, 293(19), 2362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.19.2362es_ES
dc.description.referencesThelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013). Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064841es_ES
dc.description.referencesHaustein, S. (2016). Grand challenges in altmetrics: heterogeneity, data quality and dependencies. Scientometrics, 108(1), 413-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1910-9es_ES
dc.description.referencesKolahi, J., Khazaei, S., Iranmanesh, P., Kim, J., Bang, H., & Khademi, A. (2021). Meta‐Analysis of Correlations between Altmetric Attention Score and Citations in Health Sciences. BioMed Research International, 2021(1). Portico. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6680764es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work is funded by the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) through the project: "Involvement of Patients and the Public (IPP) in health and social care research: a proposal for a meta-research project (PIE-202510E106)" under the IPP-CSIC Seed-Corn Project 2025 - MaX-CSIC Plan (Framework for Self-Assessment and Evaluation of Scientific and Social Excellence-CSIC). ACT is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis for Knowledge Users, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). NB-P is funded by a Ramon y Cajal Fellowship, Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (RYC2022-037076-I). The funders were not involved in the design of the protocol or decision to submit the protocol for publication, nor will they be involved in any aspect of the study conduct. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of, or reflecting the position of, the funder(s) or any institution.es_ES
dc.description.volume16es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2025-115612es_ES
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055es_ES
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC13110517es_ES
dc.identifier.pmid42020124es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://riunet.upv.es/handle/10251/235420
dc.languageIngléses_ES
dc.publisherBMJes_ES
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openes_ES
dc.relation.pasarelaS\582318es_ES
dc.relation.projectIDinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MICINN//RYC2022-037076-I/es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-115612es_ES
dc.rightsReconocimiento - No comercial (by-nc)es_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsAbiertoes_ES
dc.subjectPatient participationes_ES
dc.subjectProtocols & guidelineses_ES
dc.subjectHealth policyes_ES
dc.subjectEpidemiologyes_ES
dc.titleAssessing the impact, uptake and use of reporting guidelines for patient and public involvement in research: GRIPP2-study protocol for a meta-research projectes_ES
dc.typeArtículoes_ES
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiones_ES
dspace.entity.typePublication
person.identifier503786
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0131b07f-f055-4441-ae3b-7f8562b5889a
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery0131b07f-f055-4441-ae3b-7f8562b5889a
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication76fb6fa8-d7b6-417c-97d9-f6123ab8a8a5
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery76fb6fa8-d7b6-417c-97d9-f6123ab8a8a5
upv.uuid71d46924-e90f-47f5-ba1c-ec4f8aaadf37es_ES

Archivos

Bloque original

Mostrando 1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
Catala-LopezGanuzaAlonso-Arroyo - Assessing the impact uptake and use of reporting guidelines for....pdf
Tamaño:
589.7 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Versión editorial
[object Object] Descargar

Colecciones

Artículos, conferencias, monografías