Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23091107›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2012

Research participants' high expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials: are we asking the right question?

Kevin P Weinfurt, Damon M Seils, Li Lin, Daniel P Sulmasy, Alan B Astrow, Herbert I Hurwitz, Roger B Cohen, Neal J Meropol

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Navigating the Informed Consent Process When Using Innovative Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  20. 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

8 authors.

Kevin P WeinfurtDuke University, Durham, NC 27715, USA. kevin.weinfurt@duke.edu
Damon M Seils
Li Lin
Daniel P Sulmasy
Alan B Astrow
Herbert I Hurwitz
Roger B Cohen
Neal J Meropol

Funding

Understanding Patient Expectations of Treatment OutcomesR01CA100771 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MEROPOL, NEAL J., WEINFURT, KEVIN P · 2005 to 2010
$1.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA100771NCI NIH HHS R01CA100771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether patients' expectations of benefit in early-phase oncology trials depend on how patients are queried and to explore whether expectations are associated with patient characteristics. PATIENTS AND

methodsParticipants were 171 patients in phase I or II oncology trials in the United States. After providing informed consent for a trial but before receiving the investigational therapy, participants answered questions about expectations of benefit. We randomly assigned participants to one of three groups corresponding to three queries about expectations: frequency type, belief type, or both. Main outcomes were differences in expectations by question type and the extent to which expectations were associated with demographic characteristics, numeracy, dispositional optimism, religiousness/spirituality, understanding of research, and other measures.

resultsThe belief-type group had a higher mean expectation of benefit (64.4 of 100) than the combination group (51.6; P = .01) and the frequency-type group (43.1; P < .001). Mean expectations in the combination and frequency groups were not significantly different (P = .06). Belief-type expectations were associated with a preference for nonquantitative information (r = -0.19; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.36), knowledge about research (r = -0.21; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.03), dispositional optimism (r = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.37), and spirituality (r = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.38). Frequency-type expectations were associated with knowledge about clinical research (r = -0.27; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.51).

conclusionIn early-phase oncology trials, patients' reported expectations of benefit differed according to how patients were queried and were associated with patient characteristics. These findings have implications for how informed consent is obtained and assessed.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23091107
PMCPMC3615308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.