ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2013
Participant preferences for the provision of registration trials results.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials leading to drug approval (registration trials) play a central role in the drug development process, and attention has recently been paid to providing trial results to participants. In the present study, we examined the preferences of participants of registration trials for the provision of trial-related information.
methodsWe used questionnaires to survey the preferences of registration trial participants at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima National Hospital. Of the 15 questions, 6 related to participant characteristics and the trials in which they participated, while 9 questions were concerned with preferences for the provision of information. A five-point scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree) was used, and positive answers (strongly agree and agree) were considered to indicate a positive preference.
resultsOf the 58 subjects, 1 declined, giving a response rate of 98%. More than 70% of participants preferred to obtain information, even if they had served as controls. More than 80% of participants agreed to obtain information relating to trial results, even if the results were negative, and more than 80% of participants agreed to obtain information on the labeling state of the agent, even if development had ceased. Although more than 60% of participants agreed for the provision of information on their allocation and around more than 70% agreed to the provision of information on registration trials status, significantly fewer participants with difficult-to-treat diseases (for example, neurological and malignant diseases) agreed to obtain information compared with participants with other types of diseases (for example, acute, chronic, and psychological diseases). More than 50% of participants desired information to be provided directly by the physician, while a considerable number of participants desired information by means of clinical research coordinators (CRCs) (24.4%) or by posted letter (33.3%).
conclusionThe present results suggest the preferences for the provision of individual and overall information concerning research results. However, further study is warranted to determine participant preferences more precisely and the effect of the CRC-initiated infrastructure for providing information on patient satisfaction and for promoting registration trials.
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.