Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31967687›Full record

ArticleCancer2020

Patient familiarity with, understanding of, and preferences for clinical trial endpoints and terminology.

Mitchell S von Itzstein, Elda Railey, Mary L Smith, Carol B White, George W Sledge, John R Howell, Wendy Lawton, Donna M Marinucci, Nisha Unni, David E Gerber

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mitchell S von ItzsteinDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.ORCID 0000-0003-0530-3169
Elda RaileyResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-6972-5769
Mary L SmithResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
Carol B WhiteResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
George W SledgeResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
John R HowellResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
Wendy LawtonResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
Donna M MarinucciResearch Advocacy Network, Plano, Texas.
Nisha UnniDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
David E GerberDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-7812-6741
Research Advocacy Network · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USBrigham Young University · USEvanston Hospital · USStanford Medicine · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS--SPORE IN LUNG CANCERP50CA070907 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI HEYMACH, JOHN V. · 1996 to 2024
$57.4M
Development of New Cancer Treatments and InvestigatorsK24CA201543 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI GERBER, DAVID ERIC · 2016 to 2020
$737k
NCI NIH HHS K24 CA201543NCI NIH HHS P50 CA070907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough there is increased attention to designing and explaining clinical trials in ways that are clinically meaningful for patients, there is limited information on patient preferences, understanding, and perceptions of this content.

methodsMaximum difference scaling (MaxDiff) methodology was used to develop a survey for assessing patients' understanding of 19 clinical terms and perceived importance of 9 endpoint surrogate phrases used in clinical trials and consent forms. The survey was administered electronically to individuals with metastatic breast cancer affiliated with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. Analyses were performed using Bayesian P values with statistical software.

resultsAmong 503 respondents, 77% had a college degree, 70% were diagnosed with metastatic disease ≥2 years before survey completion, and 77% had received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Less than 35% of respondents reported understanding "fairly well" the terms symptomatic progression, duration of disease control, time to treatment cessation, and endpoints. Income level and time since onset of metastatic disease correlated with comprehension. Patients who had received ≥6 lines of therapy perceived that time until serious side effects (P < .001) and time on therapy (P < .001) were more important compared with those who had received only 1 line of therapy. Positively phrased parameters were associated with increased perceived importance.

conclusionsEven among educated, heavily pretreated patients, many commonly used clinical research terms are poorly understood. Comprehension and the perceived importance of trial endpoints vary over the course of disease. These observations may inform the design, discussion, and reporting of clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicComprehensionTerminology as TopicAdultAgedBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSurveys and Questionnairesbreast cancerclinical trialcomprehensionendpointsoutcomespatient-reported outcomesquality of life

Identifiers

PMID31967687
PMCPMC7276207
OpenAlexW3002631805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.