Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32454191›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2020

Patient Perceptions in a Nonblinded Randomized Trial of Radiation Therapy Technologies: A Novel Survey Study Exploring Therapeutic Misconception.

Dean A Shumway, Amy Motomura, Kent A Griffith, James A Hayman, Lori J Pierce, Reshma Jagsi

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dean A ShumwayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Amy MotomuraCenter for Law and the Biosciences and Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society, Stanford Law School, Stanford, California.
Kent A GriffithDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
James A HaymanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Lori J PierceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reshma JagsiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USMayo Clinic · USStanford Medicine · US

Funding

IMRT in the Treatment of Node-Positive Breast CancerR01CA102435 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI PIERCE, LORI J · 2004 to 2006
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA102435
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTherapeutic misconception is the tendency for a clinical trial participant to overlook the scientific objective of a clinical trial and instead believe that an experimental intervention is intended for personal therapeutic benefit. We sought to evaluate this tendency in the setting of a clinical trial of a new radiation therapy technology.

methodsPatients with left-sided, node positive breast cancer enrolled in a randomized clinical trial evaluating intensity modulated radiation therapy with deep inspiration breath hold (IMRT-DIBH) versus 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT). Patients who enrolled completed surveys at baseline, after randomization, and upon completion of radiation therapy to evaluate expectations, satisfaction, and experiences.

resultsForty women participated in the survey study, with 20 in each arm. Most participants endorsed the perception that participation in the trial might result in better treatment than the current standard treatment (77%) and more medical attention than being off trial (54%). At baseline, most women (74%) believed that a new treatment technology is superior than an established one. Before randomization, 43% of participants believed IMRT-DIBH would be more effective than standard treatment with 3DCRT, none believed that 3DCRT would be more effective, 23% believed that they would be the same, and 34% did not know. None believed that IMRT-DIBH would cause worse long-term side effects, whereas 37% thought that 3DCRT would. Most (71%) reported that they would choose to be treated with IMRT-DIBH; none would have elected 3DCRT if given a choice. Nearly half (44%) in the 3DCRT arm wished that they had been assigned to the IMRT-DIBH arm; none in the IMRT-DIBH arm expressed a wish for crossover.

conclusionsMost participants reported the perception that trial participation would result in better treatment and more medical attention than off trial, hallmarks of therapeutic misconception. Our observations provide empirical evidence of a fixed belief in the superiority of new technology and highlight the importance of adjusting expectations through informed consent to mitigate therapeutic misconception.

Indexed as

Breath HoldingComprehensionFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionPerceptionRadiotherapy, ConformalRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedSurveys and QuestionnairesTherapeutic MisconceptionUnilateral Breast Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32454191
PMCPMC8711858
OpenAlexW3026495488

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.