Prospective preference assessment for the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials face major barriers such as under-enrollment and selective enrollment, which threaten study completion and undermine validity and generalizability. Thus, we conducted a prospective preference assessment (PPA) prior to commencing the Comparison of Analgesic Regimen Effectiveness and Safety in Surgery (CARES) trial-a randomized controlled study comparing the outcomes of managing acute postoperative pain between opioid-sparing and opioid-based therapies. This PPA aimed to (1) determine the patients' willingness to participate in the CARES trial, (2) identify the areas for improvement, and (3) assess the differences between willing and unwilling patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were recruited between August 2019 and February 2020 from two academic hospitals. A survey was administered to each patient consisting of (1) a vignette describing the trial, (2) an assessment of the patients' understanding of the trial, (3) open-ended questions assessing the attitudes towards the trial, and (4) patient-completed questionnaires. Data were analyzed qualitatively with thematic analysis and quantitatively with the Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled and grouped based on the 6-point Likert scale into willing (4-6, 71%) and not willing (1-3, 29%) to participate in the CARES trial. There were no significant differences with respect to all variables: age, education, sex, visible minority status, previous research, previous surgery, regular use of pain medications, surgical concerns, previous discussions on pain management, significant pain within the past 3 months, and significant use of pain medication within the past month. Factors that motivated participation were contributing to scientific research (45%), altruism (29%), and improving personal pain (24%). Common discouraging factors were negative perceptions of opioids (29%), side effects (21%), being blinded to the study medication (21%), and poor pain management (19%). CONCLUSIONS: This PPA revealed that two key discouraging factors for patients were being blinded to the type of pain medication being taken and the potential for poor pain management as a consequence of participation. Modifications to improve patient acceptance of the CARES trial include ensuring sufficient rescue medicine and follow-up visits consistent with current standards of care for all patients, as well as patient education surrounding safe administration and side effects of the study medications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.124 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".