ArticleBritish journal of cancer2002
Describing randomisation: patients' and the public's preferences compared with clinicians' practice.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linguistic Strategies for Improving Informed Consent in Clinical Trials Among Low Health Literacy Patients.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Trial
- Successful completion of large, low-cost randomized cancer trials at an academic cancer center.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Needs, preferences, and patient participation for a randomized controlled trial on postneoadjuvant complete tumor response: A qualitative study of patients with esophageal cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Physicians' use of plain language during discussions of prostate cancer clinical trials with patients.Patient education and counseling · 2022Article
- A Study of a Culturally and Contextually Situated Multimedia Approach to Recruit a Hard-to-Reach Spanish-Speaking Population for a Randomized Control Trial (RCT).Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Patient perspectives on chemotherapy de-escalation in breast cancer.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Study Protocol of a Prospective Multicenter Study on Patient Participation for the Clinical Trial: Surgery as Needed Versus Surgery on Principle in Post-Neoadjuvant Complete Tumor Response of Esophageal Cancer (ESORES).Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Variations in stakeholders' priorities and views on randomisation and funding decisions in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An exploratory study.Health science reports · 2018Article
- An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Observational
- Barriers to accrue to clinical trials and possible solutions.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.Journal of oncology practice · 2013Article
- Power of an effective clinical conversation: improving accrual onto clinical trials.Journal of oncology practice · 2012Article
- Patient, caregiver, health professional and researcher views and experiences of participating in research at the end of life: a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- "Did the trial kill the intervention?" experiences from the development, implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- Recommendations for enhancing clinical trials education: a review of the literature.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2011Review
- The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials.British journal of cancer · 2010Article
- When "no" might not quite mean "no"; the importance of informed and meaningful non-consent: results from a survey of individuals refusing participation in a health-related research project.BMC health services research · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explaining the concept of randomisation in simple terms to patients during the discussion of randomised clinical trials can be a difficult task for many health care professionals. We report the results of a questionnaire-based survey, using seven descriptions of randomisation taken from Corbett's study. We examined the preferences of the general public and patients towards the descriptions and compared the results with the clinicians' choice. Participants in the survey were 341 lay people without cancer, 200 patients with cancer and 200 oncologists from cancer centres throughout the UK. It was difficult to identify 'the best' way to describe the process of randomisation. The two most favoured statements for patients and members of the public included a very explicit statement that mentioned 'a computer', 'chance' and 'not the doctor's or patient's decision' and a succinct statement that played down the role of 'chance'. Clinicians chose neither of these statements as closely resembling their own practice. Patients and members of the public most disliked the statement 'a computer will perform the equivalent of tossing a coin to allocate you to one of two methods of treatment'. This analogy used by 26% of oncologists, was viewed as trivialising and upsetting in the context of determining treatment for life threatening disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.