Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26926908›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

(R)evolution: toward a new paradigm of policy and patient advocacy for expanded access to experimental treatments.

Melissa Hogan

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Compassionate drug use: Current status in India.Perspectives in clinical research
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Melissa HoganSaving Case & Friends, Inc, P.O. Box 384, Thompson's Station, TN, 37179-7900, USA. melissa@savingcase.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In life-threatening conditions such as cancer and rare diseases, where there is no cure and no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved therapy, patients sometimes seek access to an unapproved, experimental therapy through expanded access programs as their last, best hope for treatment to save their lives. Since the 1980s, the policies and the practice of expanded access have evolved, but a common challenge remains that there is no obligation, and often little incentive, for manufacturers to offer expanded access programs, especially for individual patients. In recent years, online campaigns seeking access to an experimental therapy have become more common, paralleling growth in and representing an intersection of social media, digital health, and patient advocacy.Mackey and Schoenfeld have examined the evolution of expanded access policy, practice, and trends, as well as case studies of online campaigns to access experimental therapies, to arrive at several recommendations for the future of expanded access. This commentary puts their paper in context, examines their recommendations, and suggests further reforms.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0568-8.

Indexed as

Compassionate Use TrialsHumansPatient AdvocacySocial Media

Identifiers

PMID26926908
PMCPMC4772317

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.