Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42104488›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Tools to help patients and other stakeholders' input into choice of intercurrent event strategy for estimands in randomised trials.

Joanna Hindley, Charlotte Hartley, Jennifer Hellier, Kate Sturgeon, Sophie Greenwood, Ian Newsome, Katherine Barrett, Debs Smith, Tra My Pham, Dongquan Bi and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Joanna HindleyMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Charlotte HartleyMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Jennifer HellierDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Kate SturgeonMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Sophie GreenwoodAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Ian NewsomePublic Partner With the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK.
Katherine BarrettPublic Parter With the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at King's College London, London, UK.
Debs SmithPublic Parter With the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at King's College London, London, UK.
Tra My PhamMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Dongquan BiMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK.
Beatriz GoulaoAberdeen Centre for Evaluation, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Brennan C KahanMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, UCL, London, UK. b.kahan@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/07Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/09MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership MR/S014357/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimands can help to clarify the research questions being addressed in randomised trials. Because the choice of estimand can affect how relevant trial results are to patients and other stakeholders, such as clinicians or policymakers, it is important for them to be involved in these decisions. However, there are barriers to having these conversations. For instance, discussions around how intercurrent events (post-randomisation events which affect the interpretation or existence of the outcome) should be addressed in the estimand definition typically involve complex concepts as well as technical language. We aimed to provide tools that could facilitate conversations between researchers and patients and other stakeholders about the choice of intercurrent event strategy for estimands.

methodsWe developed three tools: (i) a video explaining the concept of an estimand and the five different ways that intercurrent events can be incorporated into the estimand definition; (ii) an infographic outlining these five strategies; and (iii) an editable PowerPoint slide which can be completed with trial-specific details to facilitate conversations around choice of estimand for a particular trial. Each tool was produced through collaboration between researchers and public partners. This involved (i) an initial meeting between researchers and public partners to discuss the aims of the tool; (ii) a draft of the tool being prepared by the research team; (iii) public partners providing feedback; and (iv) the research team updating and finalising the tool.

resultsThese resources can help to start conversations between the trial team and patients and other stakeholders about the best choice of estimand and intercurrent event strategies for a randomised trial. The video and infographic-which explain estimands and intercurrent events with reference to imagined examples-can be sent to stakeholders in advance of a consultation, or presented in the meeting itself. It is important that a member of the trial team is available to answer questions or clarify concepts following this. The editable slide can be completed by the trial team with the specific details of their trial, and then shown to patients or other stakeholders during the meeting to facilitate discussion around which intercurrent event strategy is most relevant for the trial. An example of a completed editable slide is also provided for an example weight loss trial.

conclusionsWe developed three tools to help researchers to have conversations with patients and other stakeholders about estimands, and how intercurrent events should be incorporated into the target estimand for a randomised trial. Further work to evaluate the tools in real-world settings across different stakeholder groups could help to validate the tools and reveal any further refinements necessary to improve their utility.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorEndpoint DeterminationPatient ParticipationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignStakeholder ParticipationAudiovisual AidsData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansInfographics as TopicInterdisciplinary CommunicationResearch PersonnelVideo RecordingEstimandIntercurrent eventPatient and Public InvolvementPPIRandomised trial

Identifiers

PMID42104488
PMCPMC13321651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.