ArticleBMJ oncology2025
Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.
Article in BMJ oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
abstractObjective: Explaining gene expression profiling (GEP) test results to patients can be challenging. We examined the utility of two 8 min films about Oncotype DX and Prosigna to aid the knowledge and decision-making of women with early-stage oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. Methods and analysis: Patients awaiting GEP test results completed an anxiety questionnaire and the intolerance of uncertainty scale (IUS) before randomisation and divided into Group A (standard verbal and/or written hospital information) or Group B (standard information plus GEP film). Prior to results, they were interviewed about their GEP test knowledge and how the recurrence risk helps determine treatment options. After the results consultation, participants answered two further questionnaires. Participating clinicians completed IUS scales and reported their satisfaction with the results discussions. Results: 230/251 patients completed the study (Group A (n=106) and Group B (n=124)). The total knowledge score was higher in Group B (estimated between groups mean difference of 2.5 (95% CI:1.7 to 3.4) p<0.001). Most treatment decisions adhered to recommended risk of recurrence thresholds, although patients with higher trait anxiety were more likely to make less apparently rational decisions OR=0.93 (95%CI 0.88 to 0.97) p=0.002 (163/230; 70.8% received ET alone; 65/230; 28% ET plus chemotherapy, and two sought second opinions). Clinicians reported slightly longer consultations for Group A participants who tended to ask more difficult and unexpected questions. Conclusion: Patients who received standard verbal and written information plus film had increased knowledge about GEP tests compared with standard information alone. Trial registration number: ISRCTN28497350.
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.