Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21599896›Full record

Trial reportTrials2011

Study protocol: Phase III single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease.

Morag C Farquhar, A Toby Prevost, Paul McCrone, Irene J Higginson, Jennifer Gray, Barbara Brafman-Kennedy, Sara Booth

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 5 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
A Toby Prevost
Paul McCrone
Irene J Higginson
Jennifer Gray
Barbara Brafman-Kennedy
Sara Booth
Addenbrooke's Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBPsychiatry Research Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

OAPP OPHS HHS PB-PG-0107-11134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreathlessness in advanced disease causes significant distress to patients and carers and presents management challenges to health care professionals. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) seeks to improve the care of breathless patients with advanced disease (regardless of cause) through the use of evidence-based practice and working with other healthcare providers. BIS delivers a complex intervention (of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments) via a multi-professional team. BIS is being continuously developed and its impact evaluated using the MRC's framework for complex interventions (PreClinical, Phase I and Phase II completed). This paper presents the protocol for Phase III. METHODS/

designPhase III comprises a pragmatic, fast-track, single-blind randomised controlled trial of BIS versus standard care. Due to differing disease trajectories, the service uses two broad service models: one for patients with malignant disease (intervention delivered over two weeks) and one for patients with non-malignant disease (intervention delivered over four weeks). The Phase III trial therefore consists of two sub-protocols: one for patients with malignant conditions (four week protocol) and one for patients with non-malignant conditions (eight week protocol). Mixed method interviews are conducted with patients and their lay carers at three to five measurement points depending on randomisation and sub-protocol. Qualitative interviews are conducted with referring and non-referring health care professionals (malignant disease protocol only). The primary outcome measure is 'patient distress due to breathlessness' measured on a numerical rating scale (0-10). The trial includes economic evaluation. Analysis will be on an intention to treat basis. DISCUSSION: This is the first evaluation of a breathlessness intervention for advanced disease to have followed the MRC framework and one of the first palliative care trials to use fast track methodology and single-blinding. The results will provide evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the service, informing its longer term development and implementation of the model in other centres nationally and internationally. It adds to methodological developments in palliative care research where complex interventions are common but evidence sparse.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00678405ISRCTN: ISRCTN04119516.

Indexed as

Palliative CareResearch DesignCaregiversCombined Modality TherapyCost-Benefit AnalysisDyspneaEnglandHealth Care CostsHumansNeoplasmsPatient Care TeamSingle-Blind MethodStress, PsychologicalTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeWaiting Lists

Identifiers

PMID21599896
PMCPMC3114770
OpenAlexW2108882532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.