Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921443›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

Learning from patient involvement in a clinical study analyzing PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer.

Marianne Vogsen, Susanne Geneser, Marie Lykke Rasmussen, Mogens Hørder, Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT01552655 nacompletednot on this map

Breast Cancer Recurrence - the Accuracy of Dual-time PET/CT

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2011 to 2014Enrolled101ConditionsBreast Cancer RecurrentArmsDual-time PET/CT (low-dose)
NCT03358589 naunknown statusnot on this map

Molecular Evaluation in Metastatic Breast Cancer - A Clinical Study of Accuracy and Response Assessment

TypeinterventionalSponsorOdense University HospitalRan2017 to 2021Enrolled270ConditionsMetastatic Breast Cancer, Molecular ImagingArmsFDG-PET/CT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marianne Vogsen1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 47, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6124-4063
Susanne Geneser4Centre for Personalized Response Monitoring in Oncology (PREMIO), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Marie Lykke Rasmussen4Centre for Personalized Response Monitoring in Oncology (PREMIO), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Mogens Hørder6Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Malene Grubbe Hildebrandt1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Kloevervaenget 47, DK-5000 Odense, Denmark.
University of Southern Denmark · DKOdense University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increasing interest in patient involvement in health care research, researchers may be uncertain about the benefits of involving patients in the design and conduction of clinical studies. We aimed to evaluate the impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment and retention in a clinical study of PET/CT in women with advanced breast cancer. Further, we report our experience regarding the researchers' attitudes towards involving patients as partners in the research process.

methodsTwo patient representatives from the Danish Breast Cancer Organization were invited as partners in the research team. These patient partners were asked to contribute in particular to participator information material and evaluation of ethical aspects of the study. The impact of patient involvement on patient recruitment was evaluated by comparing expected versus actual number of patients recruited, and then relating it to patient recruitment in a similar study at the same institution that did not involve patients as research partners.

resultsHaving patients as partners in the research team led to a major revision of the participator information material and improved patient recruitment. The expected number of patients was 260, but 380 were actually enrolled within the planned study period, thus 146% of the expected patient recruitment. In the previous study, only 100 of the expected 150 patients were enrolled during a 10-month extended study period, i.e. 67% of the expected number. Patient retention in the current study was high, with 86% of eligible patients attending follow-up scans. We observed initial resistance amongst researchers against inviting patients as team partners. This resistance gradually lessened during the study, and the most reluctant researchers at the beginning of the study later applauded the collaboration and the ideas generated by the patient representatives.

conclusionInvolving patients as partners in the research team resulted in major changes to the participator information material and contributed to higher than expected patient recruitment and retention. Furthermore, we observed a positive change of attitude amongst the researchers towards patient involvement in the research process.

trial registrationOngoing study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03358589).Previous study: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01552655).

Indexed as

Advanced breast cancerLived experiencePatient and public involvement in researchPET/CTPPI

Identifiers

PMID31921443
PMCPMC6945508
OpenAlexW3003265325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.