ReviewCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023
Beyond Participation: Evaluating the Role of Patients in Designing Oncology Clinical Trials.
Review in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and Caregiver Information-seeking in Lung Cancer Treatment: A Real-world Sentiment Analysis of Reddit Communities.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Why involvement remains fragile: a qualitative comparison of principal investigators' and patient organisations' perspectives in Italy.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- What added value does Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in oncology research bring to cancer patients and what are the challenges in realizing it? A mixed-methods cross-sectional study in four PPI groups in Flanders (Belgium).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- A Nurse-Led Family Support Intervention for Families Living With Cancer: An Experience-Based Co-Design Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Experiences of Patients, Family Members and Nurses in Outpatient Cancer Care: A Multi-Method Qualitative Study.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2026Article
- Culturally Adapted Shared Decision-Making Tool for Breast Cancer Clinical Trials in China: A Nurse-Led Approach.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Patient involvement in the design of ALIDHE: a study of ivosidenib + azacitidine in newly diagnosedFuture oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Optimising clinical trial management in Spain: The CARABELA-Clinical trials framework integrating healthcare models and subject experiences.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- How are patient partners involved in health service research? A scoping review of reviews.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Real-World Evidence Acceptability and Use in Breast Cancer Treatment Decision-Making in the United States: Call-to-Action from a Multidisciplinary Think Tank.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Evolution of reported patient and public involvement over time in randomised controlled trials in major medical journals and in their protocols: meta-epidemiological evaluation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Healthy participant engagement in early clinical trials: results from the European EUFEMED survey.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Healthcare workers and adult patients preferences of hospital built environment. Survey in ordinary surgery and medical oncology ward at the Italian National Oncology Institute.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient Preferences and Priorities for the Design of an Acute Kidney Injury Prevention Trial: Findings from a Consensus Workshop.Kidney360 · 2024Article
- Comment on "Redefining cancer research for therapeutic breakthroughs".British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- New Anticancer Drugs: Reliably Assessing "Value" While Addressing High Prices.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Global hepatitis B and D community advisory board: expectations, challenges, and lessons learned.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historically, subject matter experts and healthcare professionals have played a pivotal role in driving oncology clinical trials. Although patients have been key participants, their deliberate and active contribution to the design and decision-making process has been limited. This scoping review aimed to examine the existing literature to scope the extent of active patient engagement in the design of oncology clinical trials and its corresponding influence on trial outcomes. We conducted a systematic search using two databases, namely MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE, to identify relevant studies exploring patient engagement in cancer-related clinical research design. We identified seven studies that met the eligibility criteria. The studies highlighted the benefits of active patient involvement, such as improved recruitment strategies, and the attainment of more patient-centered trial outcomes. The influence of patient involvement varied from tangible developments like patient-friendly resources to indirect impacts like improved patient experiences and potentially higher adherence to trial intervention. The future of clinical trials should prioritize patients' values and perspectives, with regulatory bodies fostering these practices through clear guidelines. As the concept of patient centricity takes root in oncology research, the involvement of patients should evolve beyond mere participation.
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.