Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23033547›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2012

Barriers to therapeutic clinical trials enrollment: differences between African-American and white cancer patients identified at the time of eligibility assessment.

Lynne Penberthy, Richard Brown, Maureen Wilson-Genderson, Bassam Dahman, Gordon Ginder, Laura A Siminoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Designing therapeutic clinical trials for older and frail adults with cancer: U13 conference recommendations.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2014
    Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Demographic Differences in Emergency Room Epistaxis Treatment Patterns and Outcomes.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lynne PenberthyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, 23298-0306, USA. lpenbert@vcu.edu
Richard Brown
Maureen Wilson-Genderson
Bassam Dahman
Gordon Ginder
Laura A Siminoff

Funding

Virus Vector Shared ResourceP30CA016059 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI Kim Felder Rhoads · 1985 to 2026
$51.0M
Training Program in Behavioral and Health Services Cancer Control ResearchR25CA093423 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI BROWN, RICHARD FREDERICK · 2002 to 2015
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016059NCI NIH HHS R25 CA093423
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trials (CTs) are the mechanism by which research is translated into standards of care. Low recruitment among underserved and minority populations may result in inequity in access to the latest technology and treatments, compromise the generalizability, and lead to failure in identification of important positive or negative treatment effects among under-represented populations.

methodsData were collected over a 39-month period on patient eligibility for available therapeutic cancer CTs. Reasons for ineligibility and refusal were collected. The data were captured using an automated software tool for tracking eligibility pre-enrollment. We examined characteristics associated with being evaluated for a trial, and reasons for ineligibility and refusal, overall and by patient race.

resultsAfrican-Americans (AAs) were more likely than Whites to be ineligible (odds ratio, (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.0-1.58) and if eligible, to refuse participation (OR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.27-2.52), even after adjusting for insurance, age, gender, study phase, and cancer type. White patients were more likely to be ineligible due to study-specific or cancer characteristics. AAs were more likely to be ineligible due to mental status or perceived noncompliance. Whites were more likely to refuse due to extra burden, due to concerns with randomization and toxicity, or because they express a positive treatment preference. AAs were more likely to refuse because they were not interested in CTs, because of family pressures, or they felt overwhelmed (NS)). DISCUSSION: This study is the first to directly compare ineligibility and refusal rates and reasons captured prospectively in AA and White cancer patients. The data are consistent with earlier studies that indicated that AA patients more often are deemed ineligible and, when eligible, more often refuse participation. However, differences in reasons for ineligibility and refusal by race have implications for a cancer center to participate in CTs appropriate for the population of patients served. On a broader scale, consideration should be given to modifying eligibility criteria and other design aspects to permit broader participation of minority and other underserved groups.

Indexed as

Black or African AmericanClinical Trials as TopicPatient SelectionWhite PeopleAdultAgedFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesRefusal to Participate

Identifiers

PMID23033547
PMCPMC4836611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.