Cargando…
"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis
BACKGROUND: Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controll...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618787/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26490454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0248-4 |
_version_ | 1782396974250590208 |
---|---|
author | Vercellini, Paolo Somigliana, Edgardo Cortinovis, Ivan Bracco, Benedetta de Braud, Lucrezia Dridi, Dhouha Milani, Silvano |
author_facet | Vercellini, Paolo Somigliana, Edgardo Cortinovis, Ivan Bracco, Benedetta de Braud, Lucrezia Dridi, Dhouha Milani, Silvano |
author_sort | Vercellini, Paolo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on treatment for pelvic pain. METHODS: A total of 500 patients consecutively self-referring to an academic outpatient endometriosis clinic, were asked to compile two questionnaires focused on hypothetical comparisons between a new drug and a standard drug, and between medical and surgical treatment, for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients willing to participate in a theoretical RCT. RESULTS: A total of 239 (48 %) women would decline participation in a comparative study on a new drug and a standard drug, as 204 (41 %) would prefer the former medication, and 35 (7 %) the latter. Fifty women (10 %) would participate in a RCT, but only 24 (5 %) would accept blinding. The most frequently chosen option was the patient preference trial (211; 42 %). No significant differences were observed in demographic and clinical characteristics between the 50 women who would accept and the 450 who would decline to be enrolled in a RCT. A total of 229 women (46 %) would decline participation in a comparative study on medical versus surgical treatment, as 186 (37 %) would prefer pharmacological therapy and 43 (9 %) a surgical procedure. Only 11 (2 %) women would participate in such a RCT. More than half of the women (260; 52 %) selected the patient preference trial. No significant variations in distributions of answers were observed between women who did or did not undergo a previous surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of the women included in our study sample would accept randomization, and even less so blinding. Patient preference appears to play a central role when planning interventional trials on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Adequately designed observational analytic studies could be considered when recruitment in a RCT appears cumbersome. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4618787 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46187872015-10-25 "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis Vercellini, Paolo Somigliana, Edgardo Cortinovis, Ivan Bracco, Benedetta de Braud, Lucrezia Dridi, Dhouha Milani, Silvano BMC Womens Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Patients, now generally well informed through dedicated websites and support organizations, are beginning to look askance at clinical experimentation. We conducted a survey investigation to verify whether women with endometriosis would still accept to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on treatment for pelvic pain. METHODS: A total of 500 patients consecutively self-referring to an academic outpatient endometriosis clinic, were asked to compile two questionnaires focused on hypothetical comparisons between a new drug and a standard drug, and between medical and surgical treatment, for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients willing to participate in a theoretical RCT. RESULTS: A total of 239 (48 %) women would decline participation in a comparative study on a new drug and a standard drug, as 204 (41 %) would prefer the former medication, and 35 (7 %) the latter. Fifty women (10 %) would participate in a RCT, but only 24 (5 %) would accept blinding. The most frequently chosen option was the patient preference trial (211; 42 %). No significant differences were observed in demographic and clinical characteristics between the 50 women who would accept and the 450 who would decline to be enrolled in a RCT. A total of 229 women (46 %) would decline participation in a comparative study on medical versus surgical treatment, as 186 (37 %) would prefer pharmacological therapy and 43 (9 %) a surgical procedure. Only 11 (2 %) women would participate in such a RCT. More than half of the women (260; 52 %) selected the patient preference trial. No significant variations in distributions of answers were observed between women who did or did not undergo a previous surgical procedure. CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of the women included in our study sample would accept randomization, and even less so blinding. Patient preference appears to play a central role when planning interventional trials on endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. Adequately designed observational analytic studies could be considered when recruitment in a RCT appears cumbersome. BioMed Central 2015-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4618787/ /pubmed/26490454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0248-4 Text en © Vercellini et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Vercellini, Paolo Somigliana, Edgardo Cortinovis, Ivan Bracco, Benedetta de Braud, Lucrezia Dridi, Dhouha Milani, Silvano "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title | "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title_full | "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title_fullStr | "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title_full_unstemmed | "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title_short | "You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
title_sort | "you can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618787/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26490454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-015-0248-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vercellinipaolo youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT somiglianaedgardo youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT cortinovisivan youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT braccobenedetta youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT debraudlucrezia youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT drididhouha youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis AT milanisilvano youcantalwaysgetwhatyouwantfromdoctrinetopracticabilityofstudydesignsforclinicalinvestigationinendometriosis |