Trial reportTrials2011
Study protocol: Phase III single-blinded fast-track pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention for breathlessness in advanced disease.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Thorax · 2019Pooled it
- Contributions of a hand-held fan to self-management of chronic breathlessness.The European respiratory journal · 2017Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Non-Cancer-Related Causes' Impact on Lung Cancer Survival: SEER Analysis.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Explain Breathlessness: Could 'Usual' Explanations Contribute to Maladaptive Beliefs of People Living with Breathlessness?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Pilot Multidisciplinary Breathlessness Support Service.Evaluation review · 2023Article
- Attitude change and increased confidence with management of chronic breathlessness following a health professional training workshop: a survey evaluation.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Breathlessness services as a new model of support for patients with respiratory disease.Chronic respiratory disease · 2018Review
- New models of care for respiratory disease: A thematic edition.Chronic respiratory disease · 2018Article
- Are within-person Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) ratings of breathlessness 'on average' valid in advanced disease for patients and for patients' informal carers?BMJ open respiratory research · 2017Article
- Hospital without dyspnea: rationale and design of a multidisciplinary intervention.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2016Article
- Reality of evidence-based practice in palliative care.Cancer biology & medicine · 2015Review
- Translational Research in Oncology: Implications for Palliative Care.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
- A narrative review of proactive palliative care models for people with COPD.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.