ArticleIRB
Therapeutic Misperceptions in Early-Phase Cancer Trials: From Categorical to Continuous.
Article in IRB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpreting Non-Inferiority Across Effect Scales: A Bayesian Perspective with Clinical Translation.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Gene Therapy-Related Malignancy and the Risk of Cancer Exceptionalism.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Article
- Oncologists' knowledge, practices and ethical opinions about therapeutic misconception: a French national survey.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Cancer clinical trial providers' perspectives on communicating goals of care: A key informant study.PEC innovation · 2022Article
- Clinician perspectives on communication and implementation challenges in precision oncology.Personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2021Article
- Reprioritizing Risk and Benefit: The Future of Study Design in Early-Phase Cancer Research.Ethics & human research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Appropriate enrollment in early-phase clinical trials demands that potential research participants understand and appreciate critical study-related information, because discrepancies in understanding or appreciation can potentially invalidate informed consent to participate in research. Four terms were previously developed to categorize these discrepancies: therapeutic "misconception," "therapeutic misestimation," "therapeutic optimism," and "unrealistic optimism." In this article, we propose a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions, rather than discrete categorical concepts. One end of this continuum contains discrepancies in understanding, and at the other end are discrepancies in appreciation. Categorical terminologies represent points along this continuum. Discrepancies in understanding and appreciation each lead to unique ethical concerns and likely require different interventions. This framework highlights the dearth of empirical work on the appreciation end of the continuum, especially related to navigating persistent discrepancies in appreciation. Employing a continuous framework of therapeutic misperceptions supports a nuanced approach to the unique circumstances of each research subject, aiding researchers in supporting truly informed consent.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30387976PMC10347681What 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.