ReviewNeurology. Clinical practice2018
Reflections on translation: Views of participants in a multisite Canadian CCSVI clinical trial.
Review in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01864941 (Phase I/II Interventional Clinical Trial of Balloon Venoplasty for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis Patients), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Phase I/II Interventional Clinical Trial of Balloon Venoplasty for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency in Multiple Sclerosis Patients
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe sought to characterize the perspectives of participants in Canada's phase I/II chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) clinical trial prior to and after the disclosure of trial results.
methodsThis was a researcher-administered survey of individuals who participated in Canada's CCSVI trial (Clincialtrials.gov, NCT01864941) about their (1) motivations for participating, (2) understanding of the trial process, and (3) perspectives on the social value of the trial.
resultsA total of 63 participants completed the survey. Participants were motivated to participate by altruism (mean score = 4.56 out of 5) and a desire to access the intervention in Canada (mean score = 3.63 out of 5). Many participants expected medical benefits, such as partial disease reversal (mean score = 3.32 out of 5). Participants felt strongly that the crossover trial design promoted fairness (mean score = 4.65 out of 5). Participants' familiarity with the CCSVI controversy increased significantly after the results were revealed (
conclusionsThere is a strong movement in science today to ensure that research agendas reflect the perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including research participants. While previous work suggests that negative findings adversely affect trust in science, the perspectives of participants in this study demonstrate that good trial design and resilience can prevail over expected tensions.
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.