ArticleEcancermedicalscience2024
Developing knowledge, attitude and practice questionnaire in desmoid tumours (KAPID study): applying e-Delphi to rare diseases.
Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Rare diseases are associated with unique challenges encountered in diagnosis, treatment and conduct of clinical research. Desmoid tumour (DT) is one such ultra-rare malignancy about which awareness among medical professionals remains limited. We developed a questionnaire to assess knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) among medical professionals on DT. Methods: E-Delphi method was used for the assessment of KAP for DT amongst clinical experts (experience of >/= 3 years in DT). 22 open-ended statements were developed by the core research group using current consensus guidelines. In round 1, experts provided subjective feedback which was incorporated into a 35-item questionnaire. Round 2 entailed experts giving feedback as a 5-point Likert scale classified into agreement (median score >/=4), neutral (median score 3) and disagreement (median score <3). Feedback from Round 2 was incorporated and questions with neutral consensus were modified. Questions in Round 3 achieved consensus if >/= 75% participants agreed. Results: 11 (64.7%) of 17 contacted experts responded in Round 1 including 6 (54.4%) who gave additional inputs and 5 (45.6%) who agreed to all statements. In round 2, 8 out of 11 experts responded to the 35-item questionnaire on knowledge (
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.