Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33712062›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

A novel preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design for clinical trial research influenced by strong patient preferences.

Samina Ali, Gareth Hopkin, Naveen Poonai, Lawrence Richer, Maryna Yaskina, Anna Heath, Terry Paul Klassen, Chris McCabe, KidsCAN PERC Innovative Pediatric Clinical Trials No OUCH Study Group, KidsCAN PERC Innovative Pediatric Clinical Trials Methods Core

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2021. 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Effectiveness of parent-based electronic health (Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Samina AliDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, AB, Edmonton, Canada. sali@ualberta.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0595-364X
Gareth HopkinInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Naveen PoonaiDepartments of Pediatrics and Internal Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Childrens' Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lawrence RicherDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, AB, Edmonton, Canada.
Maryna YaskinaWomen and Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Anna HeathThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Terry Paul KlassenMax Rady College of Medicine, Pediatrics and Child Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Chris McCabeInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
KidsCAN PERC Innovative Pediatric Clinical Trials No OUCH Study Group
KidsCAN PERC Innovative Pediatric Clinical Trials Methods Core

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research MYG-151207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients and their families often have preferences for medical care that relate to wider considerations beyond the clinical effectiveness of the proposed interventions. Traditionally, these preferences have not been adequately considered in research. Research questions where patients and families have strong preferences may not be appropriate for traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) due to threats to internal and external validity, as there may be high levels of drop-out and non-adherence or recruitment of a sample that is not representative of the treatment population. Several preference-informed designs have been developed to address problems with traditional RCTs, but these designs have their own limitations and may not be suitable for many research questions where strong preferences and opinions are present.

methodsIn this paper, we propose a novel and innovative preference-informed complementary trial (PICT) design which addresses key weaknesses with both traditional RCTs and available preference-informed designs. In the PICT design, complementary trials would be operated within a single study, and patients and/or families would be given the opportunity to choose between a trial with all treatment options available and a trial with treatment options that exclude the option which is subject to strong preferences. This approach would allow those with strong preferences to take part in research and would improve external validity through recruiting more representative populations and internal validity. Here we discuss the strengths and limitations of the PICT design and considerations for analysis and present a motivating example for the design based on the use of opioids for pain management for children with musculoskeletal injuries.

conclusionsPICTs provide a novel and innovative design for clinical trials with more than two arms, which can address problems with existing preference-informed trial designs and enhance the ability of researchers to reflect shared decision-making in research as well as improving the validity of trials of topics with strong preferences.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchPatient PreferenceChildHumansResearch DesignResearch PersonnelTreatment OutcomeCaregiver preferenceClinical trialMethodologyPatient preference

Identifiers

PMID33712062
PMCPMC7953803

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.