Talk:PARAMOUNT trial

Reference in "Purpose" section
The above reference does not mention the PARAMOUNT trial, but it is cited by the ClinicalTrials.gov entry as being a paper produced as a result of the trial. It may not be obvious without review that the trials are the same so I wanted to state how anyone can check that they are.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   02:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Review sources
The above should help provide some independent post-analysis of the trial's results. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (PMC embargoed until March 2014)

Level of detail in 'Study participants' section
I saw this article mentioned by BlueRasberry over on WT:MED, and dropped by to stick my oar/nose in. Generally looks good, but I'm wondering if there isn't more detail than necessary in the section on 'Study participants'. The big list of inclusion/exclusion criteria, while commendably complete, may be overkill for an encyclopedia article about this clinical trial; most of the criteria come down to pretty standard "doesn't have anything that's going to complicate the therapy or data interpretation too badly" trial boilerplate.

Something like...
 * "Trial participants were adults with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC who had not previously received chemotherapy for lung cancer."

...would cover the essential points without needing the full list of 21 bullets. We can – and should – certainly include the full list of criteria by reference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is too much information here. Your editorial judgement is correct - even though the original source presents all the inclusion and exclusion criteria as equal, in actuality, some of those are trial boilerplate and apply to all clinical trials (like participants must be over age 18, healthy aside from the health problem of interest, etc.). As you suggest, this trial is interesting and unusual because it wants people with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, and that in my opinion is the most defining inclusion criteria.
 * I expect that almost all clinical trials can be summarized by just naming a few (perhaps 3?) inclusion and exclusion criteria. These could be listed in prose rather than bullet points. I will execute this in a while when I get some time. Thanks for raising this. It is a good editorial judgment.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the list. The most trial-specific information remains in prose form and I think that this is the way clinical trial articles should be.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That looks a lot better. Great!  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Medicine
I posted notice of the existence of this article at WikiProject Medicine. Some other discussion about this article is there.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   15:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Blog post mention of this article


I am thrilled that someone noticed this. The blog post mention is the last post in this blog. Hmm!  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)