Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33472621›Full record

ReviewBMC palliative care2021

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care.

Lesley Dunleavy, Danni Collingridge Moore, Ida Korfage, Sheila Payne, Catherine Walshe, Nancy Preston

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors.

Lesley DunleavyInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK. l.dunleavy@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5924-8145
Danni Collingridge MooreInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.
Ida KorfageDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Sheila PayneInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.
Catherine WalsheInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.
Nancy PrestonInternational Observatory on End of Life Care, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Health Innovation One, Sir John Fisher Drive, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4AT, UK.

Funding

European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 602541Health Technology Assessment Programme HTA 15/10/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSerious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials.

methodsThe recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures.

resultsThe recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers.

conclusionsThere is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety.

trial registrationACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingPalliative CareHumansResearch DesignCancerClinical trialDementiaPalliative careSerious adverse event

Identifiers

PMID33472621
PMCPMC7819235

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.