ArticleInnovation (Cambridge (Mass.))2020
Patients' Attitudes to Unproven Therapies in Treating COVID-19 Merit Evaluation.
Article in Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and Citizen Participation in the Identification of Ethical Considerations Aiming to Address Uncertainty in the Evaluation of Promising Interventions in a Pandemic Context.Frontiers in medical technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many randomized controlled trials have been launched to test the efficacy of promising treatments. These trials will offer great promise for future treatment. However, a public health emergency calls for a balance between gathering sound evidence and granting therapeutic access to promising trial drugs as widely as possible. In an electronic survey, we found that 3.9% of the participants preferred to receive an unproven trial drug directly in the hypothetical scenario of mild COVID-19 infection. This percentage increased drastically to 31.1% and 54.2% in the hypothetical scenario of severe and extremely severe infection, respectively. Our survey indicates a likelihood of substantial receptivity of trial drugs among actual patients in severe conditions. From the perspective of deontological ethics, a trial can only be approved when potential benefits of the investigational treatment are presumed to outweigh risks, so compassionate or off-label use of investigational therapies merits evaluation.
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.