Cited by 22Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEthics in Clinical ResearchStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

"You can't always get what you want": from doctrine to practicability of study designs for clinical investigation in endometriosis

Open access
Vercellini, Paolo, Somigliana, Edgardo, Cortinovis, Ivan, Bracco, Benedetta, de Braud, Lucrezia, Dridi, Dhouha, Milani, Silvano·2015·BMC Women's Health

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12905-015-0248-4

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vercellini, P., Somigliana, E., Cortinovis, I., Bracco, B., de Braud, L., Dridi, D., & Milani, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (IT)
Corresponding author
Vercellini, Paolo
Venue
BMC Women's Health
Published
2015-10-22
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
89-89
ISSN
1472-6874 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2163605459
Cited by
22
References
56
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Università degli Studi di Milano
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
endometriosis, willingness to participate in clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, surgical versus medical treatment, trial design, patient recruitment
MeSH terms
Adult, Endometriosis, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Research Design, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Pelvic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review