Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32368349›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020

Imaging in clinical trials: a patient-led questionnaire study to assess impact of imaging regimes on patient participation.

Katherine May, Martin Lee, Monica Jefford, Ana Ribeiro, Alison Macdonald, Veronica Morgan, Marianne Usher, Nandita M de Souza

Open 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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Talk to us! Communication is a key factor in improving the comfort of MRI research participants.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  4. Impact of the COVID-19 crisis on imaging in oncological trials.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine May1Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Martin Lee4Patient and Carer Research Review Panel, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Monica Jefford4Patient and Carer Research Review Panel, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Ana Ribeiro2Nuclear Medicine, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Alison Macdonald1Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Veronica Morgan1Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Marianne Usher1Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Nandita M de Souza1Department of Radiology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, Surrey UK.
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBRoyal Marsden Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer trials often incorporate intensive imaging with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Positron Emission Tomography with Computerised Tomography (PET/CT), which can be physically and mentally exhausting for patients. This questionnaire study aimed to determine the aspects of imaging that affect a patient's decision to participate in clinical trials in order to inform the design of future trials that utilise imaging. This should achieve greater patient compliance and improve the patient experience.

methodA detailed questionnaire assessing patient expectation and acceptability of imaging within clinical trials was developed in collaboration with two patient representatives. The questionnaire addressed the influence of scan type, length, frequency, scheduling, invasiveness and staff support on acceptability of imaging. It was applied to three patient groups. Group 1 consisted of patients newly recruited to studies with imaging, Group 2 consisted of previous participants in studies with imaging and Group 3 consisted of patients having imaging for clinical care.

resultsOne hundred ninety six patients completed the questionnaires (Group 1:47; Group 2: 50 and Group 3: 99). The use of ionising radiation and number of scans required were identified as negative influences on decision to participate by 25% of Group 3 but only by 6% of Groups 1 and 2. Scan duration >30mins was perceived as a negative factor for decision to participate by all Groups (12-22%). Good communication provided by researchers in terms of discussing the study before and after reading study materials was a key factor in influencing decision to participate (> 50% in Groups 1 and 2 and > 20% in Group 3).

conclusionFactors relating to imaging procedures within clinical trials that affect participation have been identified with communication around study materials as the key determinant. These data will be used to influence the development of future research protocols. Modification of imaging requirements within clinical trials will improve patient tolerance and acceptability and is likely to raise recruitment.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsImagingMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Patient participationPositron emission tomography with computerised tomography (PET/CT)

Identifiers

PMID32368349
PMCPMC7189543
OpenAlexW3023132661

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.