Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29930955›Full record

ArticleEGEMS (Washington, DC)2017

Methods for Incorporating Stakeholder Engagement into Clinical Trial Design.

Anne P Ehlers, Giana H Davidson, Kimberly Deeney, David A Talan, David R Flum, Danielle C Lavallee

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EGEMS (Washington, DC), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anne P EhlersDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington.
Giana H DavidsonDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington.
Kimberly DeeneyThe Comparative Effectiveness Research Translation Network.
David A TalanDepartment of Emergency Medicine and Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center.
David R FlumDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington.
Danielle C LavalleeDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington.
University of Washington · USOlive View-UCLA Medical Center · USSeattle University · US

Funding

Renewal: Gastrointestinal Surgery Outcomes Research FellowshipT32DK070555 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2024
$3.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK070555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextLack of engagement with healthcare stakeholders results in missed opportunities to understand translation of evidence into practice. CASE: Stakeholder engagement is a key component of the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) Study, a pragmatic clinical trial funded by PCORI to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotics versus urgent appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. We provide a framework for developing a stakeholder coordinating center (SCC) and describe two examples of how stakeholder engagement can inform study development.

findingsCoordinating engagement activities through the SCC established a commitment to the important partnership with stakeholders. It also facilitated communication and provided a central mechanism for obtaining input on key decisions such as development of patient-centered consent documents and appropriate stopping rules for a specific sub-population of patients with appendicitis. MAJOR THEMES: Translatable lessons include thoughtful planning for engagement, identifying stakeholders with a direct interest in the study conduct and findings, and integration of input received into the decisions that drive the conduct of the study.

conclusionsStandards for conducting patient-centered research should address the ability to successfully engage patients by demonstrating the capacity to recruit study participants, engage them over the duration of the study, and disseminate findings that are congruent with stakeholder needs. The process of sharing important clinical research findings has improved patient care, and we believe that dissemination of novel engagement strategies can lead to increased success in study design and execution.

Indexed as

Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)Discovery/ResearchPatient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR)Patient Involvement

Identifiers

PMID29930955
PMCPMC5994960
OpenAlexW2612855505

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.