Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32650809›Full record

ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2020

Profiling trial burden and patients' attitudes to improve clinical research in epidermolysis bullosa.

Christine Prodinger, Anja Diem, Katherina Ude-Schoder, Josefina Piñón-Hofbauer, Sophie Kitzmueller, Johann W Bauer, Martin Laimer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Christine ProdingerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria. ch.prodinger@salk.at.ORCID 0000-0002-5255-8140
Anja DiemEB House Austria, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Katherina Ude-SchoderEB House Austria, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Josefina Piñón-HofbauerEB House Austria, Research Program for Molecular Therapy of Genodermatoses, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Sophie KitzmuellerEB House Austria, Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Johann W BauerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.
Martin LaimerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, University Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Muellner Hauptstrasse 48, 5020, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprises inherited mechanobullous dermatoses with considerable morbidity and mortality. While current treatments are symptomatic, a growing number of innovative therapeutic compounds are evaluated in clinical trials. Clinical research in rare diseases like EB, however, faces many challenges, including sample size requirements and recruitment failures. The objective of this study was to determine attitudes of EB patients towards clinical research and trial participation as well as the assessment of contextual motivating and discouraging factors in an effort to support patient-centered RD trial designing.

methodsA 53-items questionnaire was handed over to EB patients (of all types and ages) in contact with the EB House Austria, a designated national center of expertise for EB care. Main categories included level of interest in and personal knowledge about clinical studies, pros/cons for participation and extent of individual expenses considered acceptable for participation in a clinical study. Descriptive subgroup analysis was calculated with SPSS 20.0 and Microsoft Excel.

resultsThirty-six individuals (mean age 25.7 years), diagnosed for recessive dystrophic EB (36.1%), EB simplex (33.4%), junctional EB (8.3%), dominant dystrophic EB (2.8%) and acral peeling syndrome (2.8%) participated. Motivation for participation in and the desire to increase personal knowledge about clinical trials were (outmost) high in 57.2 and 66.7%, respectively. Altruism was the major motivating factor, followed by hope that alleviation of the own symptoms can be achieved. The greatest hurdle was travel distance, followed by concerns about possible adverse reactions. Patients diagnosed for severe subgroups (RDEB, JEB) were more impaired by the extent of scheduled invasive investigations and possible adverse reactions of the study medication. Patients with generally milder EB forms and older patients were accepting more frequent outpatient study visits, blood takes, skin biopsies and inpatient admissions in association with trial participation.

conclusionsThis study provides additional indications to better determine and address attitudes towards clinical research among EB patients as well as guidance to improve clinical trial protocols for patient centricity.

Indexed as

Epidermolysis BullosaEpidermolysis Bullosa DystrophicaAdultAttitudeAustriaHumansSkinChallenges for trial designClinical trialEpidermolysis bullosaRare diseaseRecruitment failures

Identifiers

PMID32650809
PMCPMC7350741

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.