ArticleCJC open2024
Exploring Patient Viewpoints to Optimize Implementation of a Biological Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Prevention.
Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05032495 (Patient Directed Strategies for Cardiac Arrhythmia), which is not on this 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.
Patient Directed Strategies for Cardiac Arrhythmia
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Embracing patient viewpoints can enhance the translation of novel therapeutics to clinical settings. This study evaluated the acceptability of using extracellular vesicles (EVs) as a biological therapy for preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), through engagement with patients, providing insights into their attitudes and information needs. Methods: Patients participated in prerecorded presentations, virtual focus groups, and surveys to assess their perspectives on EV therapy and determine the factors influencing their acceptance of the intervention. Results: Participants with postoperative AF experienced prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays, compared to those of patients with normal heart rhythm. Prior to the presentation, a number of participants were unfamiliar with postoperative AF and biological therapies. However, postpresentation and post-focus group activities resulted in enhanced understanding of the research, with high levels of comprehension reported by all participants. The level of acceptance of EV therapy tended to increase, with a majority expressing willingness to participate in clinical trials and accept the therapy. The focus groups identified and addressed common questions regarding the potential risks and side effects of EVs, their source, dosing, utility for patients with preexisting AF, and the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) contraction or allergic reactions. Conclusions: The study highlights the importance of providing education, involving the patient's circle of care, and addressing patient concerns, to promote acceptance of therapies such as EV therapy for postoperative AF. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05032495.
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.