Trial reportClinical trials (London, England)2022
A survey of patients with laryngotracheal stenosis on future clinical trial design.
Trial report in Clinical trials (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsLaryngotracheal stenosis is a rare but devastating proximal airway fibrosis that restricts a patient's ability to breathe. Treatment is primarily surgical and to date, there has never been a multi-institutional, randomized, prospective, and interventional clinical trial for a medical therapy to treat laryngotracheal stenosis. Therefore, we aimed to obtain patient feedback to guide successful trial design, recruitment, retention, and for identifying potential barriers to study participation.
methodsOver 1000 members of an international laryngotracheal stenosis online support community (the Living with Idiopathic Subglottic Stenosis Facebook group) were sent two questionnaires for a proposed interventional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
resultsA total of 317 and 558 participants responded to the first and second surveys, respectively. The majority of participants (77%) were willing to consider enrollment, regardless of having a 50% chance of receiving placebo versus treatment (78%). The majority (84%) of participants were willing to travel 200 miles to participate for up to six in-person visits over 50 days. Specific side effects, including anemia/thrombocytopenia (72%) or risk of infection (69.3%) had the greatest impact on clinical trial participation with other side effects (peripheral edema (53%), oral ulcers (51%), and gastrointestinal side effects (41%)) having less impact.
conclusionPatients with laryngotracheal stenosis possess nuanced insight into their disease and treatment options. As a group, they are extremely motivated for better therapies. Future laryngotracheal stenosis clinical trials should focus on providing excellent side effect -related education and utilizing feedback from online advocacy groups to optimize recruitment and retention.
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.