ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2021
Patient perceptions and preferences about prostate fiducial markers and ultrasound motion monitoring procedures in radiation therapy treatment.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Men's perceptions and preferences regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy: A systematic scoping review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2023Article
- Perceptions and recall of treatment for prostate cancer: A survey of two populations.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Health preference research: An overview for medical radiation sciences.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Impact of transperineal ultrasound on perineal skin dose in prostate radiation therapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Patient perceptions and preferences about prostate fiducial markers and ultrasound motion monitoring procedures in radiation therapy treatment.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatient experiences and preferences of image-guidance procedures in prostate cancer radiotherapy are largely unknown. This study explored experiences and preferences of patients undergoing both fiducial marker (FM) insertion and Clarity ultrasound (US) procedures.
methodsA sequential explanatory mixed method approach was used. A questionnaire (n = 40) ranked experiences from 0 to 10 (worst) in the domains of invasiveness; pain; physical discomfort; and psychological discomfort. Responses were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Semi-structured interviews (n = 22) obtained further insights into their perspectives and preferences and were thematically analysed.
resultsPerceptions of invasiveness varied with 46% reporting FMs more invasive than US and 49% the same for the two procedures. The mean score for FM was 3.6 and 2.1 for US. Mean scores for pain, physical and psychological discomfort were higher for FMs with 3.3, 3.2 and 2.9, respectively, and 1.1, 1.2 and 1.7 respectively for US, only pain achieved significance (P < 0.05). Three themes emerged from the interviews: Expectations versus Experience; Preferences linked to Priorities; and Motivations. Eleven patients (50%) preferred US; however, 10 (45%) could not illicit a preference.
conclusionParticipants found both of the FM and US image-guidance procedures tolerable and acceptable. Men's preference was elusive, suggesting a more rigorous preference methodology is required to understand preferences in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.