“…This was evident from the 30% (n=32) of study protocols where CLS implemented the research (ie, carried out a study protocol), but were not part of the research team (ie, they were not involved in research design or included as authors 13,14,22,24,39,43,51,55,59,60,68,70,73,75,76,78,82,88,89,93,94,96,99,101,102,105,108,109,113–115,119 . In 28% (n=29) of the publications reviewed, CLS were research study participants 19,23,33,35–38,40,45,46,50,52,54,56,61–63,66,67,71,74,79,81,87,90,95,121,123,124 . CLS were the topic of research in 10% (n=10) of the evidence reviewed but were not involved in the research itself (eg, integration of CLS into a particular clinical domain 21,49,57,86,91,92,97,103,110,117 and CLS were acknowledged as research consultants in 6% (n=6) of the studies reviewed 53,72,77,83,85,112 …”