Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22314796›Full record

Trial reportMovement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society2012

Comparison of enrollees and decliners of Parkinson disease sham surgery trials.

Scott Y H Kim, Renee M Wilson, H Myra Kim, Robert G Holloway, Raymond G De Vries, Samuel A Frank, Karl Kieburtz

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sham surgery controls in Parkinson's disease clinical trials: views of participants.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2012
    Article
  8. Article
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.

Scott Y H KimDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA. scottkim@med.umich.edu
Renee M Wilson
H Myra Kim
Robert G Holloway
Raymond G De Vries
Samuel A Frank
Karl Kieburtz

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER'S RESEARCH ASSOCIATE ORGANIZATIONUL1RR024160 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI PEARSON, THOMAS ARTHUR · 2006 to 2011
$38.7M
Therapeutic Misconception and the Ethics of Sham Surgery Controls in PD ResearchR01NS062770 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI DE VRIES, RAYMOND G · 2009 to 2012
$1.4M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024160NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS062770NINDS NIH HHS R01-NS062770
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns have been raised that persons with serious illnesses participating in high-risk research, such as PD patients in sham surgery trials, have unrealistic expectations and are vulnerable to exploitation. A comparison of enrollees and decliners of such research may provide insights about the adequacy of decision making by potential subjects. We compared 61 enrollees and 10 decliners of two phase II neurosurgical intervention (i.e., cellular and gene transfer) trials for PD regarding their demographic and clinical status, perceptions and attitudes regarding research risks, potential direct benefit, and societal benefit, and perspectives on the various potential reasons for and against participation. In addition to bivariate analyses, a logistic regression model examined variables regarding risks and benefits as predictors of participation status. Enrollees perceived lower risk of harm while tolerating higher risk of harm and were more action oriented, but did not have more advanced disease. Both groups rated hope for benefit as a strong reason to participate, whereas the fact that the study's purpose was not solely to benefit them was rated as "not a reason" against participation. Hope for benefit and altruism were rated higher than expectation of benefit as reasons in favor of participation for both groups. Enrollees and decliners are different in their views and attitudes toward risk. Although both are attracted to research because of hopes of personal benefit, this hope is clearly distinguishable from an expectation of benefit and does not imply a failure to understand the main purpose of research.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAgedDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurosurgeryParkinson DiseaseResearch SubjectsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22314796
PMCPMC3323770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.