ArticlePatient preference and adherence2024
Patient Involvement in the Design of an Innovative Clinical Study to Compare the Palatability of Anti-Hyperkalemia Medications.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04566653 (Non-Interventional, Exploratory, Phase IV, Single-Blind, Cross-Sectional, Randomised, Cross-over Study Evaluating Patient Palatability and Preference of 3 Potassium Binders in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease & Hyperkalaemia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Non-Interventional, Exploratory, Phase IV, Single-Blind, Cross-Sectional, Randomised, Cross-over Study Evaluating Patient Palatability and Preference of 3 Potassium Binders in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease & Hyperkalaemia (APPETIZE).
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The FOCUS model: A guide to promote patient partnership in clinical trial designs.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inclusion of patient representatives as study consultants brings diverse perspectives, insights, and experiences to clinical trial design and execution, and their role in the clinical trial development process is being increasingly recognized and valued. The APPETIZE study evaluated the palatability of, and preference for, three potassium binders for treating hyperkalemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. A core aspect of the development of this study was the inclusion of a patient representative during the design stage. Here, I describe the process of patient involvement in the APPETIZE study design (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04566653), the resultant positive impacts, and key learnings. A patient with chronic kidney disease was invited to be a member of the APPETIZE trial design team. This patient representative attended study team meetings and provided invaluable input into protocol development, questionnaire selection, design of patient information sheets and consent forms, and primary manuscript structure. These critical insights resulted in an enhanced trial design and generation of high-quality, patient-relevant data. APPETIZE provides an excellent example of a patient preference study that relied on input from multiple stakeholder groups, including, most notably, the patients themselves. This approach may serve as a model for early and deep patient engagement in the design and interpretation of clinical trials.
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.