ArticleBMJ open2018
Protocol for the avatar acceptability study: a multiperspective cross-sectional study evaluating the acceptability of using patient-derived xenografts to guide personalised cancer care in Australia and New Zealand.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Avatar Acceptability Study: Survivor, Parent and Community Willingness to Use Patient-Derived Xenografts to Personalize Cancer Care.EBioMedicine · 2018Trial
- Avatar acceptability: views from the Australian Cystic Fibrosis community on the use of personalised organoid technology to guide treatment decisions.ERJ open research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-derived xenografts (PDXs) have the potential to transform personalised cancer care, however, little is known about the acceptability of using PDXs to guide treatment decision-making. Given that patient and community preferences can influence satisfaction with care as well as the success of new technologies, we will evaluate the acceptability of PDXs in individuals affected by cancer and community comparisons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This comparative cross-sectional study will recruit 323 individuals affected by cancer (cancer survivors (of childhood or adult cancer) and parents of childhood cancer survivors) and 323 community comparisons (adults and parents). We will collect data via structured interviews and questionnaires. To determine the acceptability of PDXs, we will assess five domains: willingness to use PDXs when/if diagnosed with cancer, perceived advantages and disadvantages of PDXs, maximum acceptable out-of-pocket costs per patient, maximum acceptable turnaround time to receive results and maximum acceptable number of mice sacrificed per patient. The primary endpoint will be participants' decisional balance ratio (calculated as participants' advantages ratings divided by perceived disadvantages ratings). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC:12/173) and UNSW Sydney (HC15773). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. A lay summary will be published on the Behavioural Sciences Unit website.
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.