Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36111175›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2022

"There is nothing better than participating in this study": Living the PAPAartis cardiovascular randomised controlled trial.

Nuria Romo-Avilés, Johanna Fröhlich Zapata, Alena Keuneke, David Petroff, Christian D Etz, David Epstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Nuria Romo-AvilésDepartment of Social Anthropology, University of Granada, Spain.
Johanna Fröhlich ZapataMedical Anthropologist, Medical Anthropology Research Center, Berlin, Germany.
Alena KeunekeDepartment of Social Anthropology, University of Granada, Spain.
David PetroffClinical Trial Centre, University of Leipzig, Germany.
Christian D EtzUniversity Department for Cardiac Surgery, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.
David EpsteinDepartment of Applied Economics, University of Granada, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Qualitative research can bring new dimensions of understanding decision-making process in clinical trials. Participating in a randomized clinical trial requires patients to accept complex information and make decisions in a context of uncertainty. It becomes especially complicated in the case of serious diseases in which the treatment itself implies unknown risks. This study examines these issues in the context of the PAPAartis randomized clinical trial, which aims to prevent spinal cord injuries that can occur as an adverse event following complex surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aneurysm. In this study, we accessed a group of 16 patients participating in the trial and, through in-depth interviews, sought to understand the decision-making process when taking part in the trial and their experience of it. Our results showed that patients participated for different reasons: due to trust in doctors, the hope of having a better treatment or for altruistic and collaborative reasons with science. Many patients felt they did not fully understand the extraneous information provided about the study and the complex nature of the procedure. Avoidance of paraplegia played a fundamental role in the decision to participate in this trial. Family support and the socioeconomic conditions of the patients influenced the recovery process after surgery.

Identifiers

PMID36111175
PMCPMC9468490

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.