Observational studyBJS open2021
Development of an online research platform for use in a large-scale multicentre study.
Observational study in BJS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Do non-clinical subjective factors influence the treatment decisionmaking of Brazilian dentists?Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2022Article
- Improving preparedness prior to reconstructive breast surgery via inclusion of 3D images during pre-operative counselling: a qualitative analysis.BMC women's health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParticipation in research can be beneficial for patients and healthcare providers, but may prove demanding at patient, clinician and organizational levels. Patient representatives are supportive of online research to overcome these challenges. The aim of this pilot study was to develop an online recruitment platform and test its feasibility and acceptability while evaluating the accuracy of participant-reported data.
methodsThe online research platform was developed in a 1-day 'hackathon' with a digital design company. Women who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction in 2011-2016 were invited by letter containing the web address (URL) of the study site and their unique study number. Once online, participants learned about the study, consented, entered data on demographics, treatment received and patient-reported outcome measures (BREAST-Q™), and booked an appointment for a single hospital visit for three-dimensional surface imaging (3D-SI). Real-time process evaluation was performed. The primary endpoint was recruitment rate.
resultsThe recruitment rate was 40 per cent. Of the 100 women, 50 logged on to the platform and 40 completed the process through to 3D-SI. The majority of discontinuations after logging on occurred between consenting and entering demographics (3 women, 6 per cent), and between completing the BREAST-Q and booking an appointment for 3D-SI using the online calendar (3 women, 6 per cent). All women completed the online BREAST-Q™ once started. Participants took a median of 23 minutes to complete the online process. Patient-reported clinical data were accurate in 12 of 13 domains compared with electronic records (95 per cent concordance). Process evaluation demonstrated acceptability.
conclusionThe results of this pilot demonstrate the online platform to be acceptable, feasible, and accurate for this population from a single institution. The low-burden design may enable participation from centres with less research support and participants from hard-to-reach groups or dispersed geographical locations, but with online access.
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.