ReviewNPJ breast cancer2022
Improving the odds together: a framework for breast cancer research scientists to include patient advocates in their research.
Review in NPJ breast cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engaging Patient Advocates to Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities: Opportunities to Advance Breast Cancer Research and Engagement.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Anti-CSF-1R therapy with combined immuno-chemotherapy coordinate an adaptive immune response to eliminate macrophage enriched triple negative breast cancers.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A human-centered, participatory design approach to cancer research training.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The MBCRC Advocate Researcher Program (MARP): connecting advocates and researchers as collaborative partners in cancer research.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Building a Decentralized Biobanking App for Research Transparency and Patient Engagement: Participatory Design Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Including patient advocates in basic cancer research ensures that breast cancer research is intentional, supports effective communication with broader audiences, and directly connects researchers with those who they are striving to help. Despite this utility, many cancer research scientists do not work with patient advocates. To understand barriers to engagement and build a framework for enhanced interactions in the future, we hosted a workshop with patient advocates and researchers who do engage, then discussed findings at an international metastatic breast cancer conference to solicit additional feedback and suggestions. Findings demonstrate that researchers are uncertain about how to initiate and maintain relationships with advocates. We offer actionable steps to support researchers working with patient advocates to improve cancer research and accomplish our collective goal of improving lives of those who have been diagnosed with breast cancer. We hope that this initiative will facilitate such collaborative efforts.
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.