ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Common sense oncology values to action: a patient-led framework for randomized clinical trial design.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials are the foundation of oncology drug development, yet increasing concern exists that some prioritize regulatory approval over outcomes that matter to patients. The Common Sense Oncology (CSO) initiative was founded to reorient research toward patient-valued endpoints. The CSO Patient Priorities Working Group sought to codevelop a pragmatic, patient-centered framework articulating values and actions to guide the design, conduct, and reporting of oncology randomized controlled trials.
methodsA multiphase, mixed-methods process included literature review, thematic analysis, and international stakeholder engagement. Eight focus groups were held between April 2024 and January 2025 with 131 participants across 7 countries, including people with lived cancer experience, advocates, clinicians, and trialists. Feedback from surveys and structured discussions-quantitative ratings and qualitative insights-informed iterative framework refinement.
resultsThe final framework defines 9 core values with associated actions: meaningful research question, patient partnerships, informed consent, meaningful benefit, generalizability, optimal comparator arm, minimal participant burden, timely feedback of results, and clear dissemination. All values received high endorsement (median 8-9 on a 9-point numeric rating scale [from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important)]). Qualitative analysis emphasized meaningful endpoints, transparent communication, equitable inclusion, fair compensation, and plain-language consent.
conclusionsThe CSO Values to Action Framework provides a validated, internationally informed structure for trialists, ethics boards, funders, and advocates. It offers a practical tool to align oncology research with what matters most to patients, promoting more ethical, inclusive, and relevant 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.