ArticleERJ open research2021
Avatar acceptability: views from the Australian Cystic Fibrosis community on the use of personalised organoid technology to guide treatment decisions.
Article in ERJ open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive capacity of paediatric nasal epithelial cells in sequential CFTR modulator therapy.Thorax · 2026Article
- Advances in Preclinical In Vitro Models for the Translation of Precision Medicine for Cystic Fibrosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Theratyping cystic fibrosisThe European respiratory journal · 2021Article
- A new platform for high-throughput therapy testing on iPSC-derived lung progenitor cells from cystic fibrosis patients.Stem cell reports · 2021Article
- Perspectives on the translation of in-vitro studies to precision medicine in Cystic Fibrosis.EBioMedicine · 2021Review
- Nasal Epithelial Cell-Based Models for Individualized Study in Cystic Fibrosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-oriented research approaches that reflect the needs and priorities of those most affected by health research outcomes improves translation of research findings into practice. Targeted therapies for cystic fibrosis (CF) are now a viable treatment option for some eligible individuals despite the heterogeneous patient-specific therapeutic response. This has necessitated development of a clinical tool that predicts treatment response for individual patients. Patient-derived mini-organs (organoids) have been at the forefront of this development. However, little is known about their acceptability in CF patients and members of the public.
methodsWe used a cross-sectional observational design to conduct an online survey in people with CF, their carers and community comparisons. Acceptability was examined in five domains: 1) willingness to use organoids, 2) perceived advantages and disadvantages of organoids, 3) acceptable out-of-pocket costs, 4) turnaround time and 5) source of tissue.
resultsIn total, 188 participants completed the questionnaire, including adults with CF and parents of children with CF (90 (48%)), and adults without CF and parents of children without CF (98 (52%)). Use of organoids to guide treatment decisions in CF was acceptable to 86 (95%) CF participants and 98 (100%) community participants. The most important advantage was that organoids may improve treatment selection, improving the patient's quality of life and life expectancy. The most important disadvantage was that the organoid recommended treatment might be unavailable or too expensive.
conclusionsThese findings indicate acceptance of patient-derived organoids as a tool to predict treatment response by the majority of people surveyed. This may indicate successful future implementation into healthcare systems.
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.