ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Nephron Sparing Treatment (NEST) for small renal masses: understanding patients' and clinicians' experiences of a cohort-embedded randomised control trial.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo understand the perspectives and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the trial design, recruitment and randomisation process to a novel cohort-embedded RCT design for Nephron Sparing Treatment (NEST) for small renal masses.
methodsParticipants were adult patients with a small renal mass (< 4 cm) randomised to receive either percutaneous cryotherapy (CRO) or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PRN), and clinicians involved in a trial comparing the two treatments. Semi-structured interviews followed a phenomenological approach and were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
resultsInterviews were conducted with 37 patients and 10 clinicians. Wanting to 'give back' influenced participants' decisions to take part in the trial. Most patients expressed that they had a positive and informed experience of the trial. Patients who accepted randomisation to cryotherapy (experimental intervention) were influenced by information provided regarding a potentially shorter recovery timeframe, length of hospitalisation, and lower risk of complication. Those who were randomised to receive partial nephrectomy (standard of care intervention) stated that they felt less anxious receiving 'non-experimental' treatment and felt safer in the knowledge that the tumour was removed. Clinicians expressed that the trial presented an opportunity to work collegially in identifying the best treatment for patients presenting with SRMs, though highlighted that limited consultation time was a challenge to recruitment.
conclusionsFindings support the potential feasibility of a future multicentre trial comparing percutaneous cryoablation to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in the treatment of small renal masses. The study's design, process and intervention were accepted by most, though not all, participants.
trial registrationISRCTN18156881.
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.