Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30732630›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2019

The patient's view on rare disease trial design - a qualitative study.

C M W Gaasterland, M C Jansen- van der Weide, M J du Prie-Olthof, M Donk, M M Kaatee, R Kaczmarek, C Lavery, K Leeson-Beevers, N O'Neill, O Timmis and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 'High hopes for treatment': Australian stakeholder perspectives of the clinical translation of advanced neurotherapeutics for rare neurological diseases.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

C M W GaasterlandPediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.m.gaasterland@amc.uva.nl.
M C Jansen- van der WeidePediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M J du Prie-OlthofPediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M DonkDepartment of Cognitive Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M M KaateePSC Patients Europe, Bennebroek, the Netherlands.
R KaczmarekLaboratory of Glycoconjugate Immunochemistry, Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland.
C LaveryMPS Society, Amersham, UK.
K Leeson-BeeversAlström Syndrome UK, Torquay, Devon, UK.
N O'NeillEUPATI Fellow, Bennebroek, the Netherlands.
O TimmisAKU Society, Cambridge, UK.
V van NederveenStichting Patiëntenstem.nu, Den Haag, The Netherlands.
E VroomDuchenne Parent Project, Veenendaal, The Netherlands.
J H van der LeePediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Academic Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLAlkaptonuria Society · GBDuchenne Parent Project · NLPolish Academy of Sciences · PLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NL

Funding

FP7 research program ASTERIX 603160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials in rare diseases are more challenging than trials in frequent diseases. Small numbers of eligible trial participants, often complicated by heterogeneity among rare disease patients, hamper the design and conduct of a 'classical' Randomized Controlled Trial. Therefore, novel designs are developed by statisticians. However, it is important to be aware of possible design aspects that may jeopardize the feasibility of trial conduct. If the burden of participation is considered out of proportion by patients or parents, recruitment may fail or participants may drop out before trial completion. In order to maximize the chance of success of trials in small populations, it is important to know which aspects of trial design are considered important by patients.

resultsWe have interviewed all ten members of the Patient Think Tank (PTT) of the ASTERIX project, a European research consortium on methodology for clinical trials in small populations. The PTT members are rare disease patient representatives who have completed extensive training in clinical trial methodology. We have analyzed the interviews qualitatively according to Grounded Theory using a thematic analysis, and we structured the topics in four chronologically ordered themes: 1. Involvement in trial design; 2. Opinions on trial design; 3. Trial participation; 4. Phase after the trial. Our main findings are that the PTT-members recommend that patients are involved in trial design from an early stage on, and have influence on the outcomes and measurement instruments that are chosen in the trial, the length of the study, the choice of participants, and the information that is sent to potential participants. Also, according to the PTT-members, patient groups should consider setting up disease registries, placebo groups should be minimized, and more education on clinical trials is advised.

conclusionsRare disease patient representatives who have been educated about clinical trial methodology think it is important to involve patient representatives in research at an early stage. They can be of advice in trial design in such a way that the ratio of potential benefit and burden of trial participation as well as the chosen outcome measures and in- and exclusion criteria are optimized.

Indexed as

Qualitative ResearchRare DiseasesHumansPatient ParticipationPatient SelectionQuality of LifePatient involvementQualitative studyRare diseases

Identifiers

PMID30732630
PMCPMC6367834
OpenAlexW2915627787

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.