ArticleClinical genitourinary cancer2025
Prospective Study of Patient, Nursing, and Oncology Provider Perspectives on Telemedicine Visits for Renal Cell Carcinoma Clinical Trials.
Article in Clinical genitourinary cancer, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeClinical trials enable renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients to receive promising investigational agents, yet access may be limited. Telemedicine (TM) is an increasingly utilized platform that can expand access, but perspectives on its use in clinical trial care are unknown. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted between Jan 2023 - Oct 2023 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. RCC patients enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials who had prior TM visits were eligible. Surveys in English were distributed to patients, treating clinical trial nurses (CTNs), and oncology providers engaged in clinical trials.
results39 patients, 7 CTNs, and 15 oncology providers were included in our analysis. Regarding clinical trial care, 26 patients (67%) preferred in-person, 4 (11%) preferred TM, and 9 (22%) had no preference. However, 25 patients (64%) reported TM provided an equal quality of care, and 38 (97%) reported a positive or neutral experience. Conversely, 7 CTNs (100%) and 11 providers (73%) preferred in-person care while 4 (27%) indicated no preference. Most, including 6 CTNs (86%) and 13 providers (87%), reported that TM quality of care was inferior. However, most, including 7 CTNs (100%) and 14 providers (93%), reported a positive experience with TM.
conclusionsIn this study, one third of RCC participants preferred TM or had no preference, and a majority felt TM delivered equal quality of care. Providers, however, preferred in-person visits and reported inferior quality of care with TM. These findings warrant further evaluation of safety and feasibility to optimize TM integration for clinical trial care delivery.
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.