ArticleContemporary clinical trials2013
Excluded, not dismissed: enhancing benefit in clinical research.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Participation in clinical research projects may allow an opportunity for early detection of covert diseases and subclinical disorders in asymptomatic volunteers from study-specific screening process. Exclusion of a potential participant due to failure to meet inclusion criteria eliminates any possibility of potential for research related benefit, as may exist for those that are deemed eligible and allowed to proceed with participation in the specific research study. Although the institutional bodies overseeing conduct of clinical research strive to ensure an ongoing scrutiny and prioritization of participants' wellbeing, we perceive that these mechanisms fall short as regards the interests of those volunteers who are subsequently excluded from participation in clinical research of relevance. While provision of ancillary care to address health concerns that are unmasked during the screening process may be an optimal strategy, the likelihood of successfully implementing this latter concept in current times of fiscal constraints is slim to nonexistent. Through this submission, we hope to initiate a dialogue within the research community regarding whether the current paradigm of conduct of clinical research be modified to include some degree of consideration for the screened out. We herein propose that for those volunteering for disease/disorder specific clinical research, some added degree of benefit can be assured to the screened out population through the provision of targeted health education or counseling.
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.