ArticlePloS one2021
Utilizing a large-scale biobanking registry to assess patient priorities and preferences for cancer research and education.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Associations between the Willingness to Donate Samples to Biobanks and Selected Psychological Variables.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients consented to biobanking studies typically do not specify research conducted on their samples and data. Our objective was to gauge cancer biobanking participant preferences on research topics. Patient-participants of a biobanking study at a comprehensive cancer center who had an appointment within the last 5 years, had a valid email address, and with a last known vital status of alive, were emailed a newsletter containing a link to a survey about preferences and priorities for research. The survey assessed demographics and research interest in three domains: cancer site, cancer-related topics, and issues faced by cancer patients. 37,384 participants were contacted through email to participate in the survey. 16,158 participants (43.2%) opened the email, 1,626 (4.3% overall, 10% of those who opened the email) completed the survey, and 1,291 (79.4% of those who completed the survey) selected at least one research priority. Among those who selected at least one research priorities for cancer-relevant topics, the most commonly selected were cancer treatment (66%), clinical trials (54%), and cancer prevention (53%). Similarly, the most selected priorities for cancer-related issues faced by patients were physical side effects of cancer (57%), talking to the oncologist (53%), and emotional challenges due to cancer (47%). Differences by gender were observed, with females reporting more interest in research generally. Cancer patients participating in a biobanking protocol prioritized research on treatments, prevention and side effects, which varied by gender.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.