Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Patient and Public Involvement. Patient and public involvement (PPI) Researcher Guidance.  2021. https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/ppi/ppi-researcher-guidance/. Accessed 28 May 2023.

Price A, Albarqouni L, Kirkpatrick J, Clarke M, Liew SM, Roberts N, et al. Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(1):240–53.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, Chan AW, King MT, et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA. 2018;319(5):483–94.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rivera SC, Kyte DG, Aiyegbusi OL, Slade AL, McMullan C, Calvert MJ. The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):156.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–15.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Patient and public involvement in health research: a Nordic perspective - Anne-Sofie Sand, Sameline Grimsgaard, Ingvild Pettersen, 2020 [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 27]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494819863522#bibr9-1403494819863522

Patel VA, Shelswell J, Hillyard N, Pavitt S, Barber SK. A study of the reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in orthodontic research. J Orthod. 2021;48(1):42–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

About us | James Lind Alliance [Internet]. [cited 2023 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/about-the-james-lind-alliance/

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;24(340): c332.

Article  Google Scholar 

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372): n71.

Article  Google Scholar 

Everitt HA, Landau S, O’Reilly G, Sibelli A, Hughes S, Windgassen S, et al. Assessing telephone-delivered cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and web-delivered CBT versus treatment as usual in irritable bowel syndrome (ACTIB): a multicentre randomised trial. Gut. 2019;68(9):1613–23.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hyldig N, Vinter CA, Kruse M, Mogensen O, Bille C, Sorensen JA, et al. Prophylactic incisional negative pressure wound therapy reduces the risk of surgical site infection after caesarean section in obese women: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial. BJOG. 2019;126(5):628–35.

Sung VW, Borello-France D, Newman DK, Richter HE, Lukacz ES, Moalli P, et al. Effect of behavioral and pelvic floor muscle therapy combined with surgery vs surgery alone on incontinence symptoms among women with mixed urinary incontinence: the ESTEEM randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1066.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Dyer KY, Xu Y, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Markland A, Rahn D, et al. Minimum important difference for validated instruments in women with urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(7):1319–24.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Dakin P, DiMartino SJ, Gao H, Maloney J, Kivitz AJ, Schnitzer TJ, et al. The efficacy, tolerability, and joint safety of fasinumab in osteoarthritis pain: a phase IIb/III double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Arthritis & Rheumatology. 2019;71(11):1824–34.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45(4):384–91.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Everitt H, Moss-Morris R, Sibelli A, Tapp L, Coleman N, Yardley L, et al. Management of irritable bowel syndrome in primary care: the results of an exploratory randomised controlled trial of mebeverine, methylcellulose, placebo and a self-management website. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13(1):68.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Briefing notes for researchers - public involvement in NHS, health and social care research [Internet]. [cited 2022 May 12]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371

Elliot J, Horwood A, Hunn A, Staley K, Tarpey M. Public involvement in applications to the Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service: comparative analysis of 2010, 2012 and 2014 data. HRA London, INVOLVE Southampton; 2017.

7: Increasing public involvement [Internet]. Health Research Authority. [cited 2022 May 11]. Available from: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/hra-tenth-anniversary/7-increasing-public-involvement/

Gray R, Brasier C, Zirnsak TM, Ng AH. Reporting of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in clinical trials published in nursing science journals: a descriptive study. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2021;7(1):88.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jones EL, Williams-Yesson BA, Hackett RC, Staniszewska SH, Evans D, Francis NK. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2015;261(2):243.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Owyang D, Bakhsh A, Brewer D, Boughton OR, Cobb JP. Patient and public involvement within orthopaedic research: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(13): e51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Price A, Schroter S, Snow R, Hicks M, Harmston R, Staniszewska S, et al. Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal: a descriptive study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3): e020452.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jones J, Cowe M, Marks S, McAllister T, Mendoza A, Ponniah C, et al. Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2021;7(1):52.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ellis U, Kitchin V, Vis-Dunbar M. Identification and reporting of patient and public partner authorship on knowledge syntheses: rapid review. J Particip Med. 2021;13(2): e27141.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Selman LE, Clement C, Douglas M, Douglas K, Taylor J, Metcalfe C, et al. Patient and public involvement in randomised clinical trials: a mixed-methods study of a clinical trials unit to identify good practice, barriers and facilitators. Trials. 2021;22(1):735.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gamble C, Dudley L, Allam A, Bell P, Buck D, Goodare H, et al. An evidence base to optimise methods for involving patient and public contributors in clinical trials: a mixed-methods study [Internet]. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 [cited 2023 Apr 27]. (Health Services and Delivery Research). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK316049/

Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O’Cathain A, Boyer I, Taylor J, MacDonald C, et al. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Res [Internet]. 2018 Jun 18 [cited 2021 Feb 18];7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6192439/

Hoffmann TC, Thomas ST, Shin PNH, Glasziou PP. Cross-sectional analysis of the reporting of continuous outcome measures and clinical significance of results in randomized trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Trials. 2014;15(1):362.

Ousmen A, Touraine C, Deliu N, Cottone F, Bonnetain F, Efficace F, et al. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):228.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rai SK, Yazdany J, Fortin PR, Aviña-Zubieta JA. Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17(1):143.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E. Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2015;10(1):24.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Make B. How can we assess outcomes of clinical trials: the MCID approach. COPD. 2007;4(3):191–4.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hedayat AS, Wang J, Xu T. Minimum clinically important difference in medical studies. Biometrics. 2015;71(1):33–41.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697–703.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar