ArticlePloS one2014
ClinicalTrials.gov as a data source for semi-automated point-of-care trial eligibility screening.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a clinical trial knowledge management application for community oncology.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Clinical Trials of Focused Ultrasound for Brain Tumors.Cancers · 2025Review
- Status Quo and Trends of Intra-Arterial Therapy for Brain Tumors: A Bibliometric and Clinical Trials Analysis.Pharmaceutics · 2021Review
- The My Cancer Genome clinical trial data model and trial curation workflow.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Clinical trials for diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma: the current state of affairs.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020Review
- Clinical trials from the patient perspective: survey in an online patient community.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Aspiring to Unintended Consequences of Natural Language Processing: A Review of Recent Developments in Clinical and Consumer-Generated Text Processing.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016Review
- OpenTrials: towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials.Trials · 2016Article
- Article
- Utility of electronic medical record for recruitment in clinical research: from rare to common disease.Movement disorders clinical practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementing semi-automated processes to efficiently match patients to clinical trials at the point of care requires both detailed patient data and authoritative information about open studies.
objectiveTo evaluate the utility of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry as a data source for semi-automated trial eligibility screening.
methodsEligibility criteria and metadata for 437 trials open for recruitment in four different clinical domains were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were evaluated for up to date recruitment status and eligibility criteria were evaluated for obstacles to automated interpretation. Finally, phone or email outreach to coordinators at a subset of the trials was made to assess the accuracy of contact details and recruitment status.
results24% (104 of 437) of trials declaring on open recruitment status list a study completion date in the past, indicating out of date records. Substantial barriers to automated eligibility interpretation in free form text are present in 81% to up to 94% of all trials. We were unable to contact coordinators at 31% (45 of 146) of the trials in the subset, either by phone or by email. Only 53% (74 of 146) would confirm that they were still recruiting patients.
conclusionBecause ClinicalTrials.gov has entries on most US and many international trials, the registry could be repurposed as a comprehensive trial matching data source. Semi-automated point of care recruitment would be facilitated by matching the registry's eligibility criteria against clinical data from electronic health records. But the current entries fall short. Ultimately, improved techniques in natural language processing will facilitate semi-automated complex matching. As immediate next steps, we recommend augmenting ClinicalTrials.gov data entry forms to capture key eligibility criteria in a simple, structured format.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.