Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27884854›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Cross-sectional assessment of patient attitudes towards participation in clinical trials: does making results publicly available matter?

Christopher W Jones, Valerie A Braz, Stephen M McBride, Brian W Roberts, Timothy F Platts-Mills

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Investigation and analysis of Chinese publicZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

5 authors.

Christopher W JonesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Valerie A BrazDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Stephen M McBrideDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Brian W RobertsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
Timothy F Platts-MillsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

Postresuscitation PaCO2 and neurological outcome after cardiac arrestK23HL126979 · NHLBI · ROWAN UNIVERSITY · PI ROBERTS, BRIAN W · 2015 to 2019
$769k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL126979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrevious studies have shown that a majority of patients cite altruistic motives, such as contributing to generalisable medical knowledge, as factors motivating clinical trial participation. We sought to examine the impact of making trial results publicly available on patients' willingness to participate in clinical research.

designCross-sectional analysis using a questionnaire developed by a panel with expertise in publication bias, informed consent and survey design.

settingA single urban, academic emergency department (ED) in the Northeastern USA.

participants799 ED patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed (1) participants' attitudes towards clinical trial participation, and (2) the impact of whether study results would eventually be made publicly available or not on willingness to participate in a trial.

resultsOf 799 patients surveyed, 36% (95% CI 32% to 39%) reported that they would generally like to participate in a trial, and another 50% (95% CI 47% to 54%) reported that they would consider participation depending on study details. For the majority of participants, the publication of trial results was either important (36%; 95% CI 33% to 40%) or very important (48%; 95% CI 44% to 51%). Most (63%; 95% CI 59% to 66%) reported they would be less likely to participate in a trial if investigators had not publicly released results from a prior study. Additionally, 85% (95% CI 82% to 87%) felt that it was important or very important to receive information about the publication track record of sponsors and investigators during the informed consent process.

conclusionsThe majority of patients in this sample would consider participation in a clinical trial. Patients value the public release of trial results, and believe that the informed consent process should address the possibility of non-publication.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeMotivationAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedNew EnglandPatient ParticipationSurveys and Questionnairesinformed consentpublication biastrial registration

Identifiers

PMID27884854
PMCPMC5168534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.