Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22981957›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials2013

Excluded, not dismissed: enhancing benefit in clinical research.

Maria Nardell, Akansha Chhabra, Lubna Pal

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Maria NardellYale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.
Akansha Chhabra
Lubna Pal

Funding

YALE UNIVERSITY CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARD PROGRAMUL1RR024139 · NCRR · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SHERWIN, ROBERT S · 2006 to 2011
$56.8M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024139
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchFemaleHumansObesityPatient SelectionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22981957
PMCPMC3525712

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.