Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30646295›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2018

Assessment of the Perceived Acceptability of an Early Enrollment Strategy Using Advance Consent in Health Care-Associated Pneumonia.

Amy Corneli, Brian Perry, Deborah Collyar, John H Powers, John J Farley, Sara B Calvert, Jonas Santiago, Helen K Donnelly, Teresa Swezey, Carrie B Dombeck and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Amy CorneliClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Brian PerryClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Deborah CollyarPatient Advocates in Research, Danville, California.
John H PowersDepartment of Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC.
John J FarleyCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Sara B CalvertClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Jonas SantiagoCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland.
Helen K DonnellyDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Teresa SwezeyClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Carrie B DombeckClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Carisa De AndaMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Vance G FowlerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Thomas L HollandDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University · USClinical Research Institute · USCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research · USGeorge Washington University · USMerck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USNorthwestern University · USOrthopaedic Research of Virginia · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · US

Funding

Increasing the Quality and Efficiency of Clinical Trials (R18)R18FD005292 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JENNIFER S · 2014 to 2019
$26.8M
Data commons for 'omic, microscopy and analysis core facilitiesS10OD018164 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WRAY, GREGORY A. · 2014 to 2014
$598k
FDA HHS R18 FD005292FDA HHS U18 FD005292NIH HHS S10 OD018164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Better treatment options are needed in life-threatening infections, including health care-associated pneumonia. Enrolling patients in antibacterial clinical trials before diagnosis may circumvent existing time-to-enrollment constraints. However, the acceptability of an early enrollment strategy using advance consent is unknown. Objective: To assess the perceived acceptability of an early enrollment strategy for enrolling patients in an antibacterial clinical trial before a pneumonia diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative, descriptive study used semistructured telephone interviews. Framed within a planned noninferiority pneumonia antibiotic trial, an early enrollment strategy was described and perceptions were assessed. Using this strategy, patients give consent to enroll before developing pneumonia, to be monitored by study staff, and to be randomly assigned a study antibiotic if pneumonia develops. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Fifty-two key stakeholders from across the United States, including 18 patients at risk of pneumonia, 12 caregivers, 10 representatives of institutional review boards, 7 investigators, and 5 study coordinators, were interviewed from June 20 to August 19, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Perceived acceptability of the early enrollment strategy. Results: Among the 52 stakeholders interviewed (ages 29-75 years; 14 women), patients and caregivers expressed no concerns about patients being approached about participation before developing pneumonia; however, some patients may experience anxiety on learning about their risk for pneumonia. No concerns with study staff accessing patients' medical records were expressed. The clarity of consent information was important for understanding the study rather than having the condition under investigation. Among patients, caregivers, and institutional review board representatives, preferences varied regarding opt-out and precedent autonomy procedures. Nearly all patients would be willing to join a trial using the early enrollment strategy and caregivers would be willing to provide proxy consent. Institutional review board representatives were supportive of the strategy and made recommendations for the study protocol, primarily around informed consent. Investigators and study coordinators believed the strategy would not be burdensome and offered suggestions to ensure its feasibility. Conclusion and Relevance: Results of the study suggest that the early enrollment strategy is acceptable. Future research should evaluate whether the strategy improves enrollment rates in registrational pneumonia trials and in trials of other acute infection syndromes with narrow enrollment windows and/or patients with transient decisional incapacity.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomedical ResearchDecision MakingFemaleHealthcare-Associated PneumoniaHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchResearch DesignResearch SubjectsTime FactorsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID30646295
PMCPMC6324354
OpenAlexW2905094936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.