ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07337057DENSUpdated Jan 13, 2026

DEntal implaNt Set: Development and Implementation of a Standardized Outcome Set in Implant Dentistry

An observational study in Tooth Loss / Rehabilitation, sponsored by Erasmus Medical Center. Recruiting at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-13.

Sponsored by Erasmus Medical Center · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jun 2024; still recruiting 2 years 4 months later.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,000
Ages
18 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Rationale Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants and prosthetic rehabilitation has revolutionised dentistry overwhelmingly. It is generally regarded as a safe and reliable method due to the high predictability and survival rates. Survival of suprastructure and implant, health status of the peri-implant tissues and radiographic peri-implant marginal bone loss are commonly used criteria to assess the implant treatment outcome. Although this way of treatment evaluation is important to develop and deliver safe dental implants, it does not provide sufficient information for the development of value-based healthcare.

With this new approach of health outcome measurement, in which patient reported outcomes and clinical outcomes are combined, new definitions of success are created that transform dental implant health care by informed decision making, quality improvement and reducing costs. If dentists and oral surgeons make treatment decisions based on this comprehensive health outcome, patients are more likely to receive high quality care and payers only pay for services that achieve results. Therefore, the development of an implant dentistry specific question set, a Dental Implant Standard Set, capturing both the clinicians' and patients' perspective of implant-related health outcomes is of utmost clinical relevance.

Objective(s) A combination of patient-reported outcomes and clinical health outcomes in a Dental Implant Standard Set enables clinicians to evaluate care delivery and to compare performance in a comprehensive and meaningful way. Therefore, the main aim for this project is to implement a workable Dental Implant Standard Set for the dental implant professional to monitor and improve clinicians and patients' perception of peri-implant health following dental implant treatment, and to monitor and improve the performance of dental implant practice as a whole.

Study type This is a prospectively designed multicenter cohort study including 30 dental practices in the Netherlands and Spain

Study population A total of 1000 consecutive patients will be included by the participating dental practices within 12 months.

Questionnaires regarding the clinical outcomes are administered to the dentists providing the dental implant care. PROMs are administered to the participating patients.

Generally, patients aged 18-70 years that have an indication for implant supported fixed single or multiple tooth replacement or implant-supported removable prosthesis are eligible to participate.

Methods the questionnaires are administered to the participating dentist (for clinical outcomes) and patients (Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in combination with the collection of clinical and case mix variables at 6 time points: before and at implant placement, at prosthesis placement and 10-12 months after implant placement. The PROMs is administered via a Questionnaire Manager (QM), that is developed by an external company. Within the QM also case mix and clinical data are registered

Burden and risks No risks are involved throughout the study The concise questionnaires to the patients and participating dentist will be a limited burden to the standard dental implant care.

Recruitment and consent Treating clinicians will recruit participants for this project. Clinicians will provide the patient with a brief overview of the study. Participants will receive a digital questionnaire via a link with an informed consent form and contact details (of the principal investigator) for remaining questions.

Data is not open accessible and patient specific data will be anonymously stored.

Read the detailed description

Background and Rationale:

Dental implant treatment success has traditionally been evaluated using clinical parameters such as implant survival, marginal bone loss, and tissue health from the clinician perspective. However, the shift toward value-based healthcare requires integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture treatment value from the patient's perspective.

The recently published Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus established essential domains for implant research but lacks a validated, clinically feasible patient-reported outcome instrument. Existing dental PROMs like The Oral Health Impact Profile with 14 items are too general for implant-specific evaluation, while comprehensive tools like the ICHOM Adult Oral Health Standard Set are too lengthy for routine clinical use.

Study Design:

This prospective multicenter cohort study develops and validates the Dental Implant Set (DENS), a patient-reported outcome measure based on ID-COSM domains and items extracted from validated instruments (The Oral Health Impact Profile with 14 items, the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics Questionnaire, the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire with 18 items, the Dental Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Quality of My Facial Questionnaire are used). The DENS captures four core domains: pathophysiology, implant/prosthesis lifespan, life impact, and functional outcomes.

Technical Implementation:

Data collection occurs through an integrated online platform using GemTracker and LimeSurvey. Participating clinics receive secure access credentials and standardized protocols. Patient questionnaires are distributed via secure links prior to appointments, with alternative in-clinic completion available. Clinical data entry occurs immediately post-appointment.

Validation Framework:

Psychometric evaluation includes internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha), construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, convergent validity via correlations with clinical parameters, and known-groups validity comparing patient subgroups. Test-retest reliability assessment occurs between stable timepoints.

Multicenter Design:

Approximately 30 dental implant clinics across Netherlands and Spain participate, each recruiting 50-60 patients. This design ensures diverse patient populations and practice settings while maintaining standardized data collection protocols through investigator calibration meetings.

Follow-up Schedule:

The study follows natural implant treatment phases with assessments at baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading (mature functional outcomes). This timeline aligns with standard implant care protocols.

Quality Assurance:

Standardization is maintained through investigator calibration, protocol training, and real-time data monitoring. Missing data patterns and completion rates are tracked to assess implementation feasibility. The pseudonymized data structure ensures patient privacy while enabling comprehensive analysis.

Expected Outcomes:

The validated DENS will provide a standardized, clinically feasible tool for routine implant outcome assessment, enabling benchmarking between practices, quality improvement initiatives, and value-based healthcare implementation in implant dentistry.

02

Conditions studied

  • Tooth Loss / Rehabilitation

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Dental implants
  • Patient reported outcome measures
  • Core outcome set
  • Implant dentistry
  • Peri-implant health
03

In context

Tooth Loss

165 studies on the registry are indexed under Tooth Loss; 44 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 1,000 is above the median of 80 across 40 observational studies indexed under Tooth Loss.

Browse Tooth Loss studies →

Lead sponsor

Erasmus Medical Center is the lead sponsor of 478 studies on the registry; 183 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

All patients aged 18-70 years that have an indication for implant supported fixed single or multiple tooth replacement or implant-supported removable prosthesis are eligible to participate in this study. This study will also include patients with immediate implant placement and implant placement after implant failure.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age 18-70 years
  • Indication for implant-supported fixed single or multiple tooth replacement
  • Indication for implant-supported removable prosthesis
  • Immediate implant placement cases
  • Implant placement after implant failure

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inadequate oral hygiene
  • Physical inability
  • Pregnancy
  • History of radiotherapy in head and neck region
  • Language barriers
  • Patients requiring soft tissue grafts prior to dental implant placement
  • Patients requiring bone augmentation with harvesting autogenous bone from intraoral sites prior to dental implant placement
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
1,000 participants (estimated)
Target follow-up
18 Months
Patient registry
Yes

Groups and cohorts

  • Implant Group

    Patients (18 years and older) that require implants for tooth rehabilitation after loss of tooth/teeth..

    Device: Implantology

Interventions

  • DeviceImplantology

    Implantology is a branch of dentistry focused on the placement and maintenance of dental implants, which are artificial tooth roots made typically from titanium. These implants are surgically inserted into the jawbone to support crowns, bridges, or dentures, providing a stable and long-lasting solution for missing teeth. Implantology involves careful planning, surgical procedures, and prosthetic restoration, often requiring collaboration between dental specialists. It aims to restore function, aesthetics, and patient quality of life.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Patient-reported outcomes measures

    1\. Feasibility of DENS Implementation Measure: Completion rate percentage across all timepoints Time Frame: Baseline, 1-2 weeks post-implantation, 3 months post-implantation, 3 months post-loading, 10 months post-loading Description: Percentage of enrolled patients completing DENS questionnaire at each timepoint. Target ≥80% completion rate for clinical implementability.

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  2. Internal Consistency Reliability

    Measure: Cronbach's alpha coefficient for DENS domains Time Frame: At study completion (10 months post-loading) Description: Internal consistency reliability based on ID-COSM domains. Target α ≥0.7 for acceptable reliability.

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

Secondary outcomes

  1. Secondary outcome measures

    DENS Questionnaire Validation: Test-Retest Reliability Measure: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) Time Frame: Between baseline and 1-2 weeks post-implantation (clinically stable period) Description: Temporal stability of DENS scores in patients without complications. Target ICC ≥0.7.

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  2. Responsiveness to Treatment Phases Measure: Effect sizes (Cohen's d) for DENS domain changes

    Responsiveness to Treatment Phases Measure: Effect sizes (Cohen's d) for DENS domain changes Time Frame: Between treatment phases (implantation, loading, follow-up) Description: Ability of DENS to detect clinically meaningful changes across implant treatment phases.

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  3. Convergent Validity Assessment Measure: Correlations between DENS domains and clinical parameters

    Time Frame: 3 months post-implantation, 3 and 10 months post-loading Description: Expected correlations r=0.3-0.7 between DENS life impact scores and clinical measures.

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

Other outcomes

  1. Pathophysiology Periodontal index

    Pathophysiology: Bleeding on probing, pocket depth, plaque at 3 months post-implant, 3 and 10 months post-loading

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  2. Surgical Morbidity

    Surgical Morbidity: DENS pain/swelling, 5-point Likert (1=Never to 5=Frequently)

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow up at baseline (before implant placement), at 1-2 weeks and 3 months post-implant placement.

  3. Function

    Function: DENS chewing/speech, 5-point Likert (1=Never to 5=Always) all timepoints

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  4. Satisfaction Likert Scale

    Satisfaction: DENS treatment satisfaction, 5-point Likert (1=Very Dissatisfied to 5=Very Satisfied) all timepoints

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  5. Aesthetics satisfaction

    Aesthetics: DENS appearance satisfaction, 5-point Likert (1=Very Dissatisfied to 5=Very Satisfied) at 3 and 10 months post-loading

    Time frame: Time Frame: at 3 months and 10 months post-loading of the crown

  6. Quality of Life Likert scale

    Quality of Life: DENS life impact, 5-point Likert (1=Never to 5=Always) all timepoints

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  7. Comfort Likert Scale

    Comfort: DENS comfort items, 5-point Likert all timepoints

    Time frame: Follow up from baseline (pre-implantation), 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  8. Implant Survival

    Implant Survival: Binary complications through 10 months post-loading

    Time frame: Time Frame: 1-2 weeks post-implantation (surgical healing), 3 months post-implantation (tissue maturation), 3 months post-loading (initial functional adaptation), and 10 months post-loading

  9. Pink Aesthetic score

    Pink Aesthetic Score: Professional assessment (0-14) at 3 and 10 months post-loading

    Time frame: Time Frame: Follow-up at 3 and 10 months post-loading of the crown

  10. Peri-implant Health

    Peri-implant Health: Probing depth, bleeding at 3 months post-implant, 3 and 10 months post-loading

    Time frame: Time Frame: 3 months post-implant, 3 and 10 months post-loading of the crown

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Erasmus Medical Center
    Rotterdam, South Holland 3015 GD, Netherlands
    Recruiting
    • Milton Chin, MD · Contactm.chin@erasmusmc.nl · 83218306
    • Milton Chin, MD · Sub investigator
    • Marco Cune, Prof, DMD, PhD · Sub investigator
    • Juan Blanco, Prof, PhD, DMD · Principal investigator
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Wittneben JG, Wismeijer D, Bragger U, Joda T, Abou-Ayash S. Patient-reported outcome measures focusing on aesthetics of implant- and tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:224-240. doi: 10.1111/clr.13295. PubMed 30328183 ↗
  • van der Meulen MJ, John MT, Naeije M, Lobbezoo F. The Dutch version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-NL): Translation, reliability and construct validity. BMC Oral Health. 2008 Apr 11;8:11. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-11. PubMed 18405359 ↗
  • Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 2001 Jul-Aug;21(4):329-34. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0102100408. PubMed 11475389 ↗
  • Tan WC, Krishnaswamy G, Ong MM, Lang NP. Patient-reported outcome measures after routine periodontal and implant surgical procedures. J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Jun;41(6):618-24. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12248. Epub 2014 Apr 21. PubMed 24593854 ↗
  • Steinmann G, Delnoij D, van de Bovenkamp H, Groote R, Ahaus K. Expert consensus on moving towards a value-based healthcare system in the Netherlands: a Delphi study. BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 12;11(4):e043367. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043367. PubMed 33846147 ↗
  • Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;25(4):284-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00941.x. PubMed 9332805 ↗
  • Ruiz Henao PA, Caneiro Queija L, Mareque S, Tasende Pereira A, Linares Gonzalez A, Blanco Carrion J. Titanium vs ceramic single dental implants in the anterior maxilla: A 12-month randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Aug;32(8):951-961. doi: 10.1111/clr.13788. Epub 2021 Jul 8. PubMed 34061402 ↗
  • Riordain RN, Glick M, Mashhadani SSAA, Aravamudhan K, Barrow J, Cole D, Crall JJ, Gallagher JE, Gibson J, Hegde S, Kaberry R, Kalenderian E, Karki A, Celeste RK, Listl S, Myers SN, Niederman R, Severin T, Smith MW, Murray Thomson W, Tsakos G, Vujicic M, Watt RG, Whittaker S, Williams DM. Developing a Standard Set of Patient-centred Outcomes for Adult Oral Health - An International, Cross-disciplinary Consensus. Int Dent J. 2021 Feb;71(1):40-52. doi: 10.1111/idj.12604. Epub 2021 Jan 16. PubMed 33616051 ↗
  • Powell CA, Mealey BL, Deas DE, McDonnell HT, Moritz AJ. Post-surgical infections: prevalence associated with various periodontal surgical procedures. J Periodontol. 2005 Mar;76(3):329-33. doi: 10.1902/jop.2005.76.3.329. PubMed 15857064 ↗
  • Nielsen HB, Schou S, Bruun NH, Starch-Jensen T. Professional and patient-reported outcomes of two surgical approaches for implant-supported single-crown restoration: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Feb;33(2):197-208. doi: 10.1111/clr.13883. Epub 2021 Dec 17. PubMed 34866250 ↗
  • Montero-Martin J, Bravo-Perez M, Albaladejo-Martinez A, Hernandez-Martin LA, Rosel-Gallardo EM. Validation the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14sp) for adults in Spain. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009 Jan 1;14(1):E44-50. PubMed 19114956 ↗
  • Mareque S, Castelo-Baz P, Lopez-Malla J, Blanco J, Nart J, Valles C. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of immediate implant placement compared to alveolar ridge preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Aug;25(8):4735-4748. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03986-6. Epub 2021 Jun 7. PubMed 34100157 ↗
  • Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods (Vols. 1-0). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Kunavisarut C, Jarangkul W, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S, Joda T. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing digital and conventional workflows for treatment with posterior single-unit implant restorations: A randomized controlled trial. J Dent. 2022 Feb;117:103875. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103875. Epub 2021 Oct 30. PubMed 34728252 ↗
  • Kragt L, Tiemeier H, Wolvius EB, Ongkosuwito EM. Measuring oral health-related quality of life in orthodontic patients with a short version of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP). J Public Health Dent. 2016 Mar;76(2):105-12. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12118. Epub 2015 Sep 2. PubMed 26331628 ↗
  • Kragt L, Jaddoe V, Wolvius E, Ongkosuwito E. The association of subjective orthodontic treatment need with oral health-related quality of life. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;45(4):365-371. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12299. Epub 2017 Mar 31. PubMed 28370341 ↗
  • Jonker BP, Wolvius EB, van der Tas JT, Tahmaseb A, Pijpe J. Esthetics and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Implants Placed with Guided Bone Regeneration and Complete Native Bone: A Prospective Controlled Clinical Trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Mar/Apr;35(2):406-414. doi: 10.11607/jomi.7751. PubMed 32142578 ↗
  • Jensen C, Raghoebar GM, Kerdijk W, Meijer HJA, Cune MS. Implant-supported mandibular removable partial dentures; patient-based outcome measures in relation to implant position. J Dent. 2016 Dec;55:92-98. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.008. Epub 2016 Oct 18. PubMed 27769657 ↗
  • Feine J, Abou-Ayash S, Al Mardini M, de Santana RB, Bjelke-Holtermann T, Bornstein MM, Braegger U, Cao O, Cordaro L, Eycken D, Fillion M, Gebran G, Huynh-Ba G, Joda T, Levine R, Mattheos N, Oates TW, Abd-Ul-Salam H, Santosa R, Shahdad S, Storelli S, Sykaras N, Trevino Santos A, Stephanie Webersberger U, Williams MAH, Wilson TG Jr, Wismeijer D, Wittneben JG, Yao CJ, Zubiria JPV. Group 3 ITI Consensus Report: Patient-reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 16:270-275. doi: 10.1111/clr.13299. PubMed 30328187 ↗
  • Tonetti MS, Sanz M, Avila-Ortiz G, Berglundh T, Cairo F, Derks J, Figuero E, Graziani F, Guerra F, Heitz-Mayfield L, Jung RE, Lai H, Needleman I, Papapanou PN, Sailer I, Sanz-Sanchez I, Schwarz F, Shi J, Thoma D. Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report. J Clin Periodontol. 2023 May;50 Suppl 25:5-21. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13808. Epub 2023 May 4. PubMed 37143289 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — The IPD sharing plan is currently undecided; the protocol is being submitted to BMJ Open.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Started Jun 2024 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jun 2027, 35 months after the start.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Dec 2, 2025
First posted
Jan 13, 2026
StartActual
Jun 24, 2024
Primary completionEst.
Jun 1, 2027
CompletionEst.
Jun 1, 2027
Last update
Jan 13, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 13, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07337057
Collaborators
University of Santiago de Compostela, University Medical Center Groningen
Responsible party
Dr. Justin Pijpe (Principal Investigator, Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Erasmus Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 13, 2026
Start date
Jun 24, 2024
Primary completion
Jun 1, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jun 1, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Jan 13, 2026

Study contacts

Milton Chin, MD
Contact
m.chin@erasmusmc.nl
83218306 ext. +316
Justin Pijpe, MD, DMD, PhD
Contact
Eppo B Wolvius, Prof. PhD. DMD. MD.
principal investigator · Erasmus Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion