ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Cancer Clinical Trial Patients' Perceptions of Reporting Adverse Events Via an Electronic Platform.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. 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.
- A Pilot Study on the Collection of Adverse Event Data from the Patient Using an Electronic Platform in a Cancer Clinical Trial Unit.Drugs - real world outcomes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate adverse event (AE) reporting is critical to the success of clinical trials; over the last 10 years, momentum has been building to collect AE data directly from the patient. In this study, we investigated the use of an electronic, web-based platform by which cancer clinical trial patients self-reported AE data. In this report, we explored the perceptions and experiences of participants using the platform during participation in an interventional clinical trial. METHODOLOGY: Patients consenting to an interventional clinical trial run by a cancer clinical trial unit at a tertiary hospital in Australia were eligible for enrolment. Participants used an online platform to report symptomatic data weekly over 26 weeks. Participant feedback on the platform was collected via an implementation survey at baseline, week 12, and week 26 and a qualitative interview at week 26.
resultsParticipants agreed that the platform was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible in its purpose. This agreement remained throughout their participation on the study. Qualitative analysis of interview data revealed three major themes: accessibility and useability, platform functionality, and personal attributes and benefits/burdens. Participants reported areas for improvement, primarily around platform functionality and consideration of symptom burden limiting participant capacity to engage with the platform.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates, in-depth, the participant experience of self-reporting cancer clinical trial AE data via an electronic platform. Our study lends evidence from the participant-perspective to previously-reported studies investigating the feasibility of collecting AE data directly from the patient. Participants agreed that the platform was feasible and would be of benefit to future cancer clinical trial participants.
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.