ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Survey of Danish Head and Neck Cancer Patients' Positions on Personalized Medicine, Gene Tests, and Personalized Follow-Up.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- PLASMA: Partial LeAst Squares for Multiomics Analysis.Cancers · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The field of personalized medicine (PM) has grown rapidly because of the "omics revolution", but PM may be difficult for patients to comprehend. This study sought to explore head and neck cancer (HNC) patients' positions and knowledge of PM, gene tests, and follow-up and to compare HNC patients' positions to a sample from a national Danish questionnaire. To do this, patients with prior HNC were invited to participate in a questionnaire. Initial interviews revealed a heterogenic understanding of PM between patients. A total of 226 patients were included in the survey and 177 patients with complete data were included for analysis. Most patients were more positive than negative towards gene tests and gene research (83% and 93%, respectively), but 72% had little or no knowledge of the subject. Almost all patients, 98%, were satisfied with their follow-up. Significantly more patients with HNC were positive towards gene research compared to a sample from a national Danish questionnaire (
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.