Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19583857›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2009

The feasibility of a single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease.

Morag C Farquhar, Irene J Higginson, Petrea Fagan, Sara Booth

3 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00678405 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of a Breathlessness Intervention Service for Intractable Breathlessness.

TypeinterventionalSponsorCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRan2008 to 2010Enrolled120ConditionsDyspneaArmsBreathlessness Intervention Service, Best supportive care (Standard Care)
NCT00711438 phase2completednot on this map

Phase II Pilot Pragmatic Single-Blinded Fast Track Randomised Controlled Trial of the Breathlessness Intervention Service Versus Standard Care for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

TypeinterventionalSponsorCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustRan2006 to 2007Enrolled13ConditionsDyspneaArmsBreathlessness Intervention Service (BIS), Best supportive care (Standard care)
NCT03834116 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Resistance Inspiratory Muscle Training in the Management of Breathlessness in Patients With Thoracic Malignancies: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled196ConditionsLung Neoplasm MalignantArmsInspiratory muscle training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Breathing exercises for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. The effect of resistance inspiratory muscle training in the management of breathlessness in patients with thoracic malignancies: a feasibility randomised trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. The experience of using the SEIQoL-DW with patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): issues of process and outcome.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2010
    Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Morag C FarquharGeneral Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Dept Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. mcf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Irene J Higginson
Petrea Fagan
Sara Booth
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBDepartment of Public Health · USKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Breathlessness Intervention Service is a novel service for patients with intractable breathlessness regardless of aetiology. It is being evaluated using the Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions. This paper describes the feasibility results of Phase II: a single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

methodsA single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial was conducted for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease referred to the service. Patients were randomised to either receive the intervention immediately for an eight-week period, or receive the intervention after an eight-week period on a waiting list during which time they received standard care. Outcomes examined included: response rates to the trial; response rates to the individual questionnaires and items; comments relating to the trial functioning made during interviews with patients, carers, referrers and service providers; and, researcher fieldwork notes.

results16 of the 20 eligible patients agreed to participate in a recruitment visit (16/20); 14 respondents went on to complete a recruitment visit/baseline interview. The majority of those who completed a recruitment visit/baseline interview completed the RCT protocol (13/14); 12 of their carers were recruited and completed the protocol. An unblinding rate of 6/25 respondents (patients and carers) was identified. Missing data were minimal and only one patient was lost to follow up. The fast-track trial methodology proved feasible and acceptable. Two of the baseline/outcome measures proved unsuitable: the WHO performance scale and the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW).

conclusionThis study adds to the evidence that fast-track randomised controlled trials are feasible and acceptable in evaluations of palliative care interventions for patients with non-malignant conditions. Reasonable response rates and low attrition rates were achieved. Further, with adequate preparation of the research and randomisation teams, clinicians, and responders, and effective liaison with the clinicians, single-blinding proved possible. Methods were identified to reduce unblinding through careful attention to the type of data collected at unblinded measurement points; the content of interviews should be carefully considered when designing blinded-trial protocols.

trial registrationClinical Trials.gov NCT00711438.

Identifiers

PMID19583857
PMCPMC2731082
OpenAlexW1969045809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.