Panel Discussion: Where are we in designing the proper trial?

Panel Participants:
Thomas Jagoe, MD – McGill University, Canada
Tora Solheim, MD – St. Olavs Hospital, Norway
David Currow, MD – University of Technology, Australia

The speaker's disclosure of Conflict of Interest is available on the conference website.

Learning Objectives:
At the end of this presentation, the participant will be able to:
1 - Assess the relevance of clinical outcome measures in future cachexia trials, especially to measure function, in phase III of clinical trials.

Moderators:
Marie Fallon, MD – University of Edinburgh, UK
Barry Laird, PhD – University of Edinburgh, UK
 

Please rate from low (1) to high (5).

Question Title

* 1. Your name and email (this information will not be shared with anyone)

Question Title

* 2. Please rate the quality of the session on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

  1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Neutral 4 - Agree 5 - Strongly Agree
Met the stated learning objectives
Enhanced my knowledge
Satisfied my expectations
Conveyed information that applied to my practice
Allocated at least 25% of the time for interaction
Was free from commercial bias

Question Title

* 3. If you perceived any sources of commercial bias, please describe:

(ranked the previous question a 1 or 2)

Question Title

* 4. What did you learn or how will this educational session impact your practice?

Question Title

* 5. Please indicate which CanMEDS roles you felt were addressed during this educational activity?

Question Title

* 6. Please rate the presenter, Thomas Jagoe:

  1 - Bad 2 - Not Bad 3 - Good 4 - Very Good 5 - Extremely Good
Knowledge
Presentation Skills
Topic Relevance

Question Title

* 7. Please rate the presenter, Tora Solheim:

  1 - Bad 2 - Not Bad 3 - Good 4 - Very Good 5 - Extremely Good
Knowledge
Presentation Skills
Topic Relevance

Question Title

* 8. Please rate the presenter, David Currow:

  1 - Bad 2 - Not Bad 3 - Good 4 - Very Good 5 - Extremely Good
Knowledge
Presentation Skills
Topic Relevance

Question Title

* 9. Please rate the overall session:

  1 - Bad 2 - Not Bad 3 - Good 4 - Very Good 5 - Extremely Good
Panel Discussion

Question Title

* 10. Any additional comments?

T