Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32014881›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Dissemination of trial results to participants in phase III pragmatic clinical trials: an audit of trial investigators intentions.

M Zulfiqar Raza, Hanne Bruhn, Katie Gillies

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

M Zulfiqar RazaHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Hanne BruhnHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Katie GilliesHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK k.gillies@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7890-2854
University of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office HSRU2Medical Research Council MR/L01193X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the proportion of Phase III clinical trials given a favourable opinion by a research ethics committee in the UK that provided trial results to those who participated.

designAudit of records.

settingPhase III clinical trials registered on the UK's research permissions system (Integrated Research Application System) between the 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017.

main outcome measuresProportion of trial investigators that intended to provide results to trial participants compared against what trials reported to ethics committees at the end of study.

resultsOut of 1404 Phase III trials, 87.7% (n=1231) trials stated they intended to disseminate results to participants while 12.3% (n=173) trials stated they would not. Out of these 1231 trials, 18.8% (n=231) trials intended to actively communicate trial results or a means of accessing results to their participants, a further 80.5% (n=991) reported passive intention to disseminate and for the remainder (n=9) the process was unclear. Of the 370 End of Study reports (30% of all included studies) that could be accessed 10 (2.7%) explicitly mentioned activities related to dissemination of findings to participants with the majority (74.9%) having no mention and a further 22.4% of reports not being accessible. Of the 10 which did report dissemination of results to participants the majority (n=6) were through a lay summary or letter.

conclusionsReported intention to disseminate results to trial participants among trial investigators is high, however, reporting of feedback methods is lacking. In addition, mechanisms to ensure intentions to disseminate trial results are translated into actual behaviour need to be put in place to ensure those who participate in trials have the opportunity to find out about the results.

Indexed as

Clinical AuditClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansInformation DisseminationPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Kingdomclinical auditclinical trialsmedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID32014881
PMCPMC7045144
OpenAlexW3003658848

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.