ArticlePloS one2016
Perceptions of Research Bronchoscopy in Malawian Adults with Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Swedish study participants undergoing research bronchoscopy - a tolerable or unpleasant experience?Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Perceptions about and reasons for participation in research bronchoscopy in Uganda: A qualitative analysis.PloS one · 2023Article
- A Malawi guideline for research study participant remuneration.Wellcome open research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Bronchoscopy is an established research tool in Malawi, enabling collection of pulmonary samples for immunological, pharmacological, and microbiological studies. It is, however, an invasive clinical procedure that offers no direct benefit to volunteering participants when used in a research capacity alone, and thus informed consent is essential. This study aimed to explore TB patients' understanding of research bronchoscopy, what would motivate them to participate in research bronchoscopy, and their concerns, in order to inform consenting processes for future clinical studies. We used a qualitative research design. Two focus group discussions were conducted with community members and TB patients to understand their perceptions of bronchoscopy. Transcripts were coded by multiple co-authors and thematic content analysis was used to analyse main findings. We found that Malawian patients with pulmonary TB were willing to participate in a study using research bronchoscopy for health assessment and access to improved healthcare. We identified information of value to potential participants when consenting to that may lessen some of the anxieties expressed by participants. Patient and public involvement is essential to improve informed consent and institutional trust.
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.