Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29288137›Full record

Trial reportJournal of clinical epidemiology2018

A prospective cohort and extended comprehensive-cohort design provided insights about the generalizability of a pragmatic trial: the ProtecT prostate cancer trial.

Jenny L Donovan, Grace J Young, Eleanor I Walsh, Chris Metcalfe, J Athene Lane, Richard M Martin, Marta K Tazewell, Michael Davis, Tim J Peters, Emma L Turner and 6 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

16 authors.

Jenny L DonovanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West, Hosted by University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: Jenny.Donovan@bristol.ac.uk.
Grace J YoungSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Eleanor I WalshSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris MetcalfeSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J Athene LaneSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Richard M MartinSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Bristol Nutrition Biomedical Research Unit, Bristol, UK.
Marta K TazewellSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michael DavisSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Tim J PetersSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emma L TurnerSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Nicola MillsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Hanan KhazraguiSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Tarnjit K KheraSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
David E NealNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Freddie C HamdyNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
ProtecT Study Group

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15064Cancer Research UK 19169Cancer Research UK 24432Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) deliver robust internally valid evidence but generalizability is often neglected. Design features built into the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) RCT of treatments for localized prostate cancer (PCa) provided insights into its generalizability. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingPopulation-based cluster randomization created a prospective study of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and a comprehensive-cohort study including groups choosing treatment or excluded from the RCT, as well as those randomized. Baseline information assessed selection and response during RCT conduct.

resultsThe prospective study (82,430 PSA-tested men) represented healthy men likely to respond to a screening invitation. The extended comprehensive cohort comprised 1,643 randomized, 997 choosing treatment, and 557 excluded with advanced cancer/comorbidities. Men choosing treatment were very similar to randomized men except for having more professional/managerial occupations. Excluded men were similar to the randomized socio-demographically but different clinically, representing less healthy men with more advanced PCa.

conclusionThe design features of the ProtecT RCT provided data to assess the representativeness of the prospective cohort and generalizability of the findings of the RCT. Greater attention to collecting data at the design stage of pragmatic trials would better support later judgments by clinicians/policy-makers about the generalizability of RCT findings in clinical practice.

Indexed as

AgedHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient SelectionProspective StudiesProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsResearch DesignSocioeconomic FactorsTreatment OutcomeProstate-Specific AntigenClinical trialComprehensive cohortExternal validityGeneralizabilityProstate cancerRandomized

Identifiers

PMID29288137
PMCPMC5854278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.