Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384883›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials? A mixed methods study.

Zandra Engelbak Nielsen, Stefan Eriksson, Laurine Bente Schram Harsløf, Suzanne Petri, Gert Helgesson, Margrete Mangset, Tove E Godskesen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

7 authors.

Zandra Engelbak NielsenDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Section 5073, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stefan ErikssonCentre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden.
Laurine Bente Schram HarsløfDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Section 5073, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Suzanne PetriDepartment of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Section 5073, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gert HelgessonStockholm Centre for Healthcare Ethics (CHE), LIME, Karolinska Institutet, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Margrete MangsetDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Kirkeveien 166, Bygg 20, 0450, Oslo, Norway.
Tove E GodskesenCentre for Research Ethics & Bioethics, Uppsala University, Box 564, 751 22, Uppsala, Sweden. tove.godskesen@crb.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients.

methodsA mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority.

resultsOur findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions.

conclusionsDespite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual's specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationResearch DesignAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalNeoplasmsPatient SelectionTreatment OutcomeLiterature reviewMixed methodsNeoplasmsNursesOutcomesPharmacological clinical trialsPhysiciansQualitativeSurvival

Identifiers

PMID32384883
PMCPMC7206768

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.