Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2010
Participants' uptake of clinical trial results: a randomised experiment.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations for the return of research results to study participants and guardians: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2012Guideline
- Testing approaches to sharing trial results with participants: The Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed methods trial.PLoS medicine · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Disclosure of research results: a randomized study on GENEPSO-PS cohort participants.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016Trial
- The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Providing trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic effectiveness RCTs: a scoping review.Trials · 2021Article
- "Maybe they have found something new" participants' views on returning cohort psychosocial survey results.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015Article
- Feedback of trial results to participants: a survey of clinicians' and patients' attitudes and experiences.European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society · 2011Article
- Revisiting the Obligation to Share Aggregate Results with Research Participants in the Era of Open Science.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipants are showing great interest these days in obtaining the results of clinical trials. The aim of this study was to assess patients' uptake and understanding of the results of the trial in which they have participated and the impact of a letter offering patients the possibility of consulting the trial results on a specific website.
methodsBreast cancer patients participating in a trial on the efficacy of Trastuzumab were randomly subdivided into an Internet group (who received the letter of invitation) and a control group (who did not receive it). Among 115 HER2-positive women from 21 centres, 107 (93%) answered a self-administered questionnaire.
resultsMost of the patients in both groups had access to the Internet (72.0%). The majority (97.2%) stated that receiving information about the trial results would be useful, and the oncologist was the most frequently preferred information provider. The Internet group's declared uptake of the trial results was only slightly higher (47.1% vs 33.9%; P=0.166); however, they understood the results significantly more accurately (18.8% vs 5.6%; P=0.039).
interpretationAlthough Internet was not the respondents' preferred source of information, the possibility of using this source slightly increased the uptake and understanding of the results.
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.