MelanomaAISC-GPNCT04576416
Artificial Intelligence Augmented Training in Skin Cancer Diagnostics for General Practitioners
A study testing AI augmented training and clinical feedback in people with Melanoma and Skin Cancer, run by Herlev Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
Background: The worldwide incidence of skin cancer has been rising for 50 years, in particular the incidence of malignant melanoma has increased approx. 2-7% annually and is the most common cancer amongst Danes aged 15-34. Currently there is a significant amount of misdiagnosis of skin cancer and mole cancer. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Melanoma, Skin Cancer
- What is being tested?
- AI augmented training and clinical feedback
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 115 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2021to 31 Jan 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Participating doctors are required to have a danish doctors authorization and work at least 4 days a week in a general practitioners office.
- The participating doctors may register skin lesions on patients of all ages with skin lesions suspected of skin cancer. A skin lesion is for the purpose of this study defined as a mole or tumor that either patient or GP raises suspicion of skin cancer about.
Who cannot join
- Doctors that have participated in a small qualitative pilot study are excluded.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Artificial Intelligence Augmented Training of Danish General Practitioners in Skin Cancer Diagnostics - A Randomized Superiority Clinical Trial
Background:
The worldwide incidence of skin cancer has been rising for 50 years, in particular the incidence of malignant melanoma has increased approx. 2-7% annually and is the most common cancer amongst Danes aged 15-34. Currently there is a significant amount of misdiagnosis of skin cancer and mole cancer. Our aim is to improve general practitioners' diagnostic skills and accuracy of skin and mole cancer.
Read more
Research questions:
In a population of Danish General Practitioners (GPs) what is the dose/response effect of hours spent with an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback on their diagnostic accuracy and accurate clinical management (treatment, dismissal, referral)? Does access to an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback increase the number of malignant skin lesions referred by Danish GPs without simultaneously increasing the number of incorrect benign referrals? Can the participating GPs clinical accuracy be predicted from the MCQ-score by comparing their quiz answers and diagnostic accuracy on their registered lesions with their score on the MCQ?
Method:
90 Danish GPs will at baseline, 1 month and end of trial answer a Multiple Choice Questionnaire (MCQ). There is no change to current clinical practice, but all participating doctors will be asked to register a clinical picture and a dermoscopic image as well as basic information about the lesion and patient (age, gender, location and diagnosis) of all skin lesions examined due to a suspicion for non-melanoma or melanoma skin cancer, raised by the GP or patient.
GPs in the intervention group are besides the registration application (R-app) given access to an AI augmented training and clinical feedback through an educational smartphone app (E-app). Within the E-app the doctor can access quizzes on a library of 10,000+ skin lesions, written articles about the 40 most common skin lesions, and a clinical feedback module that gives the GP feedback on their registered skin lesions.
Feedback on skin lesions with the registered clinical management of referred/excised/biopsied will be provided continuously by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics (>10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group. Feedback on the remaining registered cases are withheld until the end of the study period. This is done to simulate a realistic clinical setting during the study.
Read the detailed description
Statistics and Results Using data from the E-app, scores on the MCQs and the diagnostic accuracy of the GP's a dose/response relationship is calculated, in order to answer the research questions posed above.
Aim The aim of this project is to investigate the dose/response effect on GPs' proficiency from AI augmented training and clinical feedback in skin cancer diagnostics. This project will examine how much training is needed before the GPs' ability to diagnose and correctly refer skin cancer is affected.
Research Questions In a population of Danish GPs what is the dose/response effect of hours spent with an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback on their diagnostic accuracy and accurate clinical management (treatment, dismissal, referral)?
Does access to an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback increase the number of malignant skin lesions referred by Danish general practitioners without simultaneously increasing the number of incorrect benign referrals? Can the participating GPs clinical accuracy be predicted from the MCQ-score by comparing their quiz answers and diagnostic accuracy on their registered lesions with their score on the MCQ?
Design This stratified superiority RCT will include 90 GPs in Denmark. The study period is five months. Three months of active intervention, then two months of post intervention observation period.
Participating GPs must give signed consent before receiving a short introductory course regarding the use of hard- and software. They are then asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding the use of the platform as well as completing a proficiency test using a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) at baseline and again after 1 and 3. The MCQ consists of 12 skin lesion cases randomly sampled from a test library developed and validated by our research group.
Stratification and randomization:
Eligible participants will be stratified based on gender, results on the pre-test, age, type of clinic and self-reported years of experience diagnosing skin lesions, before being randomized (allocation ratio 3:1) into either the intervention or control group. Intervention All participating doctors will be asked to register all skin lesions examined due to a suspicion for non-melanoma or melanoma skin cancer, raised by the GP or patient, throughout the study period (Figure 2). Skin lesions will be registered using the R-app that enables photo acquisition and registration of: patient social security number (CPR), location of lesion, tentative diagnosis and chosen clinical action (referral, excision, monitoring, none) ect.
The intervention consists of AI augmented training and clinical feedback through an educational smartphone app (E-app), whilst the control group registers the lesions but otherwise continues its standard clinical practice.
The E-app has two modules:
The training module includes AI enhanced case training on a library of 10,000+ benign and malignant skin lesion cases each coupled to written learning modules. Clinical feedback module gives the user diagnostic feedback on all cases registered in the registration module. Feedback during the trial will be based on either histopathology or the consensus agreement of domain experts (if no biopsy is taken). Feedback on referred or dismissed skin lesions will be provided by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics ( >10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group. Statistics The mean improvement in clinical and MCQ-tested diagnostic accuracy measured will be compared between intervention and control groups using independent t-tests. Clinical accuracy will be determined using histopathology and/or expert consensus as gold standard. Both per-protocol and Intention To Treat analysis will be calculated in order to elucidate potentially missed differences and to allow readers to interpret the effect of the intervention.
Power and Sample Size To our knowledge there is no data within the literature that describes the typical number of skin lesions seen by a Danish GP. Based on estimates from clinical experience roughly eight patients are seen by each GP per week with skin lesions suspected of skin cancer. With 90 GPs registering 90% of all lesions this amounts to 8.417 skin lesions registered during the three months. However, the ratio of benign to malignant skin lesions (BMR) referred or removed by GPs is typically somewhere between 10-29:1. Specialised centers in the UK have reported that it is possible to achieve accurate melanoma diagnostics with a BMR of 1.74-6.3:1, based on clinical evaluation aided by dermatoscopy alone. Based on these numbers an effect size of Cohen's d = 0.5-0.8 is realistic. This would require around 25-40 GPs in each group to achieve a minimum 80% power.
Ethical considerations Patient participation contains no immediate strain or discomfort for the patient, and no change to current clinical practise, as dermoscopic evaluation is part of the clinical examination of skin lesions. The images captured are stored safely and anonymously with no risk for the patient.
Participating patients receive current standard of practice or an additional teledermatological evaluation of their skin lesions, giving them an expert opinion rather than only the opinion of their GP, in cases where patients are not referred to a dermatologist. A setup with minimal discomfort for the patient and the evaluation of their skin lesions by an expert justifies the participation of the patients.
With the current low diagnostic accuracy of GP's the educational nature of the intervention justifies the study for the sake of all future patients with skin lesions that are less likely to be misdiagnosed.
Educational interventions on doctors do not require approval by The National Committee on Health Research Ethics in Denmark. However, a waiver has been obtained from the The Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Capital Region of Denmark (case number H-20059977) and ethical considerations have been made and the project is in concordance with the Helsinki Declaration II.
- Conditions
- Melanoma, Skin Cancer
- Being tested
- AI augmented training and clinical feedback
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Education, Diagnostic Accuracy, Skin Cancer
- Medical subject headings
- Melanoma, Skin Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
AI augmented training and clinical feedbackOther
The educational platform has two modules:
The training module includes AI enhanced case training on a library of 10,000+ benign and malignant skin lesion cases each coupled to written learning modules. Participants will be able to track their progression through automatically generated performance statistics and discuss difficult cases with peers within the application.
Clinical feedback is defined as diagnostic feedback on all cases registered in the registration module. Feedback during the trial will be based on either histopathology or the consensus agreement of domain experts (if no biopsy is taken). Feedback on referred or dismissed skin lesions will be provided by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics ( >10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | During the three months the intervention group will receive access to the AI augmented digital educational platform and its two modules (Training Module and Clinical Feedback Module). They will receive continuous clinical feedback on their registered lesions. Receives: Other: AI augmented training and clinical feedback |
| Control | No intervention | The control group continues its standard clinical practice without access to the E-app, but does register skin lesions throughout the full 3 month period. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Time spent on educational materials
The participants time spend with the digital educational platform is measured by the platform.
Measured: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
Change in diagnostic accuracy
The change in diagnostic accuracy is measured as percentage of correctly diagnosed skin lesions.
Measured: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
Benign/Malignant Ratio
All registered lesions will be evaluated by a expert dermatologist. Using the expert opinion as golden standard a ratio of the benign and malignant skin lesions forwarded by the General Practitioner is calculated.
Measured: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
Secondary outcomes (1)
Multiple-Choice-Questionnaire predictability of diagnostic accuracy
Participants will answer a 12-item multiple choice test at baseline, after 1 and 3 months. The multiple-choice-questionnaire is validated and descriped here: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-020-02097-8 A correlation between the participants MCQ score and their clinical diagnostic accuracy is calculated. A high score correlates to high diagnostic accuracy (better).
Measured: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Oct 2020
- Study start1 Nov 2021
- Primary completion15 Jan 2022
- Study completion31 Jan 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for MelanomaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- A randomized superiority clinical trial. Participating doctors are stratified and randomized to either intervention or control in a 3:1 allocation ratio.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 115 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Herlev Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Gustav Gede Nervil, Herlev Hospital
- Investigators
- Gustav G Nervil, MD, Principal investigator, Research Unit of Plastic Surgery, Herlev Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04576416
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- AISC-GP
- Acronym
- AISC-GP
- Status last verified
- Jul 2023
- First submitted
- 24 Sep 2020
- Last updated
- 25 Jul 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Jul 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Artificial Intelligence Augmented Training of Danish General Practitioners in Skin Cancer Diagnostics - A Randomized Superiority Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04576416
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- AISC-GP / AISC-GP
- Conditions
- Melanoma, Skin Cancer
- Keywords
- Artificial Intelligence, Education, Diagnostic Accuracy, Skin Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 115 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Herlev HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Jan 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Background:
The worldwide incidence of skin cancer has been rising for 50 years, in particular the incidence of malignant melanoma has increased approx. 2-7% annually and is the most common cancer amongst Danes aged 15-34. Currently there is a significant amount of misdiagnosis of skin cancer and mole cancer. Our aim is to improve general practitioners' diagnostic skills and accuracy of skin and mole cancer.
Research questions:
In a population of Danish General Practitioners (GPs) what is the dose/response effect of hours spent with an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback on their diagnostic accuracy and accurate clinical management (treatment, dismissal, referral)? Does access to an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback increase the number of malignant skin lesions referred by Danish GPs without simultaneously increasing the number of incorrect benign referrals? Can the participating GPs clinical accuracy be predicted from the MCQ-score by comparing their quiz answers and diagnostic accuracy on their registered lesions with their score on the MCQ?
Method:
90 Danish GPs will at baseline, 1 month and end of trial answer a Multiple Choice Questionnaire (MCQ). There is no change to current clinical practice, but all participating doctors will be asked to register a clinical picture and a dermoscopic image as well as basic information about the lesion and patient (age, gender, location and diagnosis) of all skin lesions examined due to a suspicion for non-melanoma or melanoma skin cancer, raised by the GP or patient.
GPs in the intervention group are besides the registration application (R-app) given access to an AI augmented training and clinical feedback through an educational smartphone app (E-app). Within the E-app the doctor can access quizzes on a library of 10,000+ skin lesions, written articles about the 40 most common skin lesions, and a clinical feedback module that gives the GP feedback on their registered skin lesions.
Feedback on skin lesions with the registered clinical management of referred/excised/biopsied will be provided continuously by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics (>10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group. Feedback on the remaining registered cases are withheld until the end of the study period. This is done to simulate a realistic clinical setting during the study.
Detailed description
Statistics and Results Using data from the E-app, scores on the MCQs and the diagnostic accuracy of the GP's a dose/response relationship is calculated, in order to answer the research questions posed above.
Aim The aim of this project is to investigate the dose/response effect on GPs' proficiency from AI augmented training and clinical feedback in skin cancer diagnostics. This project will examine how much training is needed before the GPs' ability to diagnose and correctly refer skin cancer is affected.
Research Questions In a population of Danish GPs what is the dose/response effect of hours spent with an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback on their diagnostic accuracy and accurate clinical management (treatment, dismissal, referral)?
Does access to an educational platform that offers AI augmented training and clinical feedback increase the number of malignant skin lesions referred by Danish general practitioners without simultaneously increasing the number of incorrect benign referrals? Can the participating GPs clinical accuracy be predicted from the MCQ-score by comparing their quiz answers and diagnostic accuracy on their registered lesions with their score on the MCQ?
Design This stratified superiority RCT will include 90 GPs in Denmark. The study period is five months. Three months of active intervention, then two months of post intervention observation period.
Participating GPs must give signed consent before receiving a short introductory course regarding the use of hard- and software. They are then asked to complete a short questionnaire regarding the use of the platform as well as completing a proficiency test using a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) at baseline and again after 1 and 3. The MCQ consists of 12 skin lesion cases randomly sampled from a test library developed and validated by our research group.
Stratification and randomization:
Eligible participants will be stratified based on gender, results on the pre-test, age, type of clinic and self-reported years of experience diagnosing skin lesions, before being randomized (allocation ratio 3:1) into either the intervention or control group. Intervention All participating doctors will be asked to register all skin lesions examined due to a suspicion for non-melanoma or melanoma skin cancer, raised by the GP or patient, throughout the study period (Figure 2). Skin lesions will be registered using the R-app that enables photo acquisition and registration of: patient social security number (CPR), location of lesion, tentative diagnosis and chosen clinical action (referral, excision, monitoring, none) ect.
The intervention consists of AI augmented training and clinical feedback through an educational smartphone app (E-app), whilst the control group registers the lesions but otherwise continues its standard clinical practice.
The E-app has two modules:
The training module includes AI enhanced case training on a library of 10,000+ benign and malignant skin lesion cases each coupled to written learning modules. Clinical feedback module gives the user diagnostic feedback on all cases registered in the registration module. Feedback during the trial will be based on either histopathology or the consensus agreement of domain experts (if no biopsy is taken). Feedback on referred or dismissed skin lesions will be provided by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics ( >10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group. Statistics The mean improvement in clinical and MCQ-tested diagnostic accuracy measured will be compared between intervention and control groups using independent t-tests. Clinical accuracy will be determined using histopathology and/or expert consensus as gold standard. Both per-protocol and Intention To Treat analysis will be calculated in order to elucidate potentially missed differences and to allow readers to interpret the effect of the intervention.
Power and Sample Size To our knowledge there is no data within the literature that describes the typical number of skin lesions seen by a Danish GP. Based on estimates from clinical experience roughly eight patients are seen by each GP per week with skin lesions suspected of skin cancer. With 90 GPs registering 90% of all lesions this amounts to 8.417 skin lesions registered during the three months. However, the ratio of benign to malignant skin lesions (BMR) referred or removed by GPs is typically somewhere between 10-29:1. Specialised centers in the UK have reported that it is possible to achieve accurate melanoma diagnostics with a BMR of 1.74-6.3:1, based on clinical evaluation aided by dermatoscopy alone. Based on these numbers an effect size of Cohen's d = 0.5-0.8 is realistic. This would require around 25-40 GPs in each group to achieve a minimum 80% power.
Ethical considerations Patient participation contains no immediate strain or discomfort for the patient, and no change to current clinical practise, as dermoscopic evaluation is part of the clinical examination of skin lesions. The images captured are stored safely and anonymously with no risk for the patient.
Participating patients receive current standard of practice or an additional teledermatological evaluation of their skin lesions, giving them an expert opinion rather than only the opinion of their GP, in cases where patients are not referred to a dermatologist. A setup with minimal discomfort for the patient and the evaluation of their skin lesions by an expert justifies the participation of the patients.
With the current low diagnostic accuracy of GP's the educational nature of the intervention justifies the study for the sake of all future patients with skin lesions that are less likely to be misdiagnosed.
Educational interventions on doctors do not require approval by The National Committee on Health Research Ethics in Denmark. However, a waiver has been obtained from the The Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Capital Region of Denmark (case number H-20059977) and ethical considerations have been made and the project is in concordance with the Helsinki Declaration II.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- A randomized superiority clinical trial. Participating doctors are stratified and randomized to either intervention or control in a 3:1 allocation ratio.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention | Experimental | Other: AI augmented training and clinical feedbackDuring the three months the intervention group will receive access to the AI augmented digital educational platform and its two modules (Training Module and Clinical Feedback Module). They will receive continuous clinical feedback on their registered lesions. |
| Control | No intervention | –The control group continues its standard clinical practice without access to the E-app, but does register skin lesions throughout the full 3 month period. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Participating doctors are required to have a danish doctors authorization and work at least 4 days a week in a general practitioners office.
- The participating doctors may register skin lesions on patients of all ages with skin lesions suspected of skin cancer. A skin lesion is for the purpose of this study defined as a mole or tumor that either patient or GP raises suspicion of skin cancer about.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Doctors that have participated in a small qualitative pilot study are excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| AI augmented training and clinical feedbackThe educational platform has two modules: The training module includes AI enhanced case training on a library of 10,000+ benign and malignant skin lesion cases each coupled to written learning modules. Participants will be able to track their progression through automatically generated performance statistics and discuss difficult cases with peers within the application. Clinical feedback is defined as diagnostic feedback on all cases registered in the registration module. Feedback during the trial will be based on either histopathology or the consensus agreement of domain experts (if no biopsy is taken). Feedback on referred or dismissed skin lesions will be provided by independent experts in skin cancer diagnostics ( >10 years of experience) through a web-based review system developed by our group. | Other | Intervention |
Primary outcome
Time spent on educational materials
Time frame: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
The participants time spend with the digital educational platform is measured by the platform.
Change in diagnostic accuracy
Time frame: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
The change in diagnostic accuracy is measured as percentage of correctly diagnosed skin lesions.
Benign/Malignant Ratio
Time frame: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
All registered lesions will be evaluated by a expert dermatologist. Using the expert opinion as golden standard a ratio of the benign and malignant skin lesions forwarded by the General Practitioner is calculated.
1 secondary outcome
Multiple-Choice-Questionnaire predictability of diagnostic accuracy
Time frame: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Jul 2023.
Related trials for Melanoma
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A Beta-only IL-2 ImmunoTherapY Study
Advanced Solid Tumor, Unresectable Solid Tumor
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Hepzato Kit and Opdualag for Metastatic Melanoma and Liver Metastasis
Metastatic Melanoma, Liver Metastases
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Clinical Genetics Branch Eligibility Screening Survey
Melanoma, Li-Fraumeni Syndrome
RecruitingPhase 1
A Study of BI 3810944 in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Solid Tumours, Melanoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 1/2
Combination Immunotherapy Targeting Melanoma
Melanoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Gustav G Nervil, MD principal investigator
Research Unit of Plastic Surgery, Herlev Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing AI augmented training and clinical feedback in people with Melanoma and Skin Cancer, run by Herlev Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Jul 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Time spent on educational materials (time frame: Participants are assessed over a period of 5 months.). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Jul 2023.