Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090495›Full record

ArticleTrials2021

Letter on "Sharing trial results directly with trial participants and other stakeholders after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic hit the UK - experience from the ActWELL trial".

Hanne Bruhn, Annie S Anderson, Amy Hickman, E Jane Macaskill, Shaun Treweek

Abstract readLetter
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. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Hanne BruhnHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Room 306, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. hanne.bruhn@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9309-9809
Annie S AndersonCentre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Amy HickmanBreast Cancer Now, 222 Leith Walk, Edinburgh, EH6 5EQ, UK.
E Jane MacaskillDepartment of Breast Surgery, Level 6, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK.
Shaun TreweekHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Room 306, 3rd Floor, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office BC/Screening/17/01Chief Scientist Office HSRU2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic took hold in the UK, the ActWELL trial team's plans to present the trial results to participants and other stakeholders had to change. Instead of face-face events, three online events were planned and hosted successfully. In this article, we describe the choices made in planning and organisation of the online events including things we would do differently if we were to do it again. We think that online events are a useful platform when informing participants and other stakeholders of the results of your trial, even beyond the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, and we hope this article can help other trial teams to plan their own online events.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansSARS-CoV-2United KingdomCOVID-19Online eventsRandomised trialsResearch transparencyResult disseminationTrial conduct

Identifiers

PMID34090495
PMCPMC8179700

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.