ArticleBMC cancer2010
The Brustkrebs-Studien.de website for breast cancer patients: User acceptance of a German internet portal offering information on the disease and treatment options, and a clinical trials matching service.
Article in BMC cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review.The oncologist · 2017Pooled it
- Digital Information Exchange Between the Public and Researchers in Health Studies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Public knowledge and information sources for clinical trials among adults in the USA: evidence from a Health Information National Trends Survey in 2020.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Applicability of Different Electronic Record Types for Use in Patient Recruitment Support Systems: Comparative Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- The role of long non-coding RNA GAS5 in cancers.Cancer management and research · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- Consumer input into research: the Australian Cancer Trials website.Health research policy and systems · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe internet portal http://www.brustkrebs-studien.de (BKS) was launched in 2000 by the German Society of Senology (DGS) and the Baden-Württemberg Institute for Women's Health (IFG) to provide expert-written information on breast cancer online and to encourage and facilitate the participation of breast cancer patients in clinical trials. We describe the development of BKS and its applications, and report on website statistics and user acceptance.
methodsExisting registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, were analysed before we designed BKS, which combines a trial registry, a knowledge portal, and an online second opinion service. An advisory board guided the process. Log files and patient enquiries for trial participation and second opinions were analysed. A two-week user satisfaction survey was conducted online.
resultsDuring 10/2005-06/2010, the portal attracted 702,655 visitors, generating 15,507,454 page views. By 06/2010, the website's active scientific community consisted of 189 investigators and physicians, and the registry covered 163 clinical trial protocols. In 2009, 143 patients requested trial enrolment and 119 sought second opinions or individual treatment advice from the expert panel. During the two-week survey in 2008, 5,702 BKS visitors submitted 507 evaluable questionnaires. Portal acceptance was high. Respondents trusted information correctness (80%), welcomed self-matching to clinical trials (79%) and planned to use the portal in the future (76%) and recommend it to others (81%).
conclusionsBKS is an established and trusted breast cancer information platform offering up-to-date resources and protocols to the growing physician and patient community to encourage participation in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to assess potential increases in trial enrolment by eligibility matching services.
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.