ArticleTrials2023
Starting a conversation about estimands with public partners involved in clinical trials: a co-developed tool.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Estimating treatment effects in trials with outcome data truncated by death: A case study on aligning estimators with estimands.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Using the ICH estimand framework to improve the interpretation of treatment effects in internet interventions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- Incorporation of Patient and Public Involvement in Statistical Methodology Research: Summary of Workshop Proceedings.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Reporting of cluster randomised crossover trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Mapping the evidence for patient and public involvement and engagement in statistical methodology research: A scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- "The power imbalance was blown out the window": developing and implementing creative workshops to enhance communication of statistics in patient and public involvement in clinical trials.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- The estimands framework: a primer on the ICH E9(R1) addendum.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Incorporation of patient and public involvement in statistical methodology research: a survey assessing current practices and attitudes of researchers.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials aim to draw conclusions about the effects of treatments, but a trial can address many different potential questions. For example, does the treatment work well for patients who take it as prescribed? Or does it work regardless of whether patients take it exactly as prescribed? Since different questions can lead to different conclusions on treatment benefit, it is important to clearly understand what treatment effect a trial aims to investigate-this is called the 'estimand'. Using estimands helps to ensure trials are designed and analysed to answer the questions of interest to different stakeholders, including patients and public. However, there is uncertainty about whether patients and public would like to be involved in defining estimands and how to do so. Public partners are patients and/or members of the public who are part of, or advise, the research team. We aimed to (i) co-develop a tool with public partners that helps explain what an estimand is and (ii) explore public partner's perspectives on the importance of discussing estimands during trial design.
methodsAn online consultation meeting was held with 5 public partners of mixed age, gender and ethnicities, from various regions of the UK. Public partner opinions were collected and a practical tool describing estimands, drafted before the meeting by the research team, was developed. Afterwards, the tool was refined, and additional feedback sought via email.
resultsPublic partners want to be involved in estimand discussions. They found an introductory tool, to be presented and described to them by a researcher, helpful for starting a discussion about estimands in a trial design context. They recommended storytelling, analogies and visual aids within the tool. Four topics related to public partners' involvement in defining estimands were identified: (i) the importance of addressing questions that are relevant to patients and public in trials, (ii) involving public partners early on, (iii) a need for education and communication for all stakeholders and (iv) public partners and researchers working together.
conclusionsWe co-developed a tool for researchers and public partners to use to facilitate the involvement of public partners in estimand discussions.
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.