ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2015
Desiderata for Major Eligibility Criteria in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Missingness in Eligibility Criteria for Target Trial Emulation in EHR With Survival Outcomes.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
- Completeness of Common Data Elements for Breast Cancer Clinical Trials in Observational Databases.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- The Data Gap in the EHR for Clinical Research Eligibility Screening.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018Article
- GIST 2.0: A scalable multi-trait metric for quantifying population representativeness of individual clinical studies.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Use of major eligibility criteria is a popular but unstudied folk practice for improving patient screening efficiency for clinical studies. This mixed-methods research study derived the desiderata for major eligibility criteria in breast cancer clinical trials. We randomly selected thirty interventional breast cancer clinical trials conducted at The New York-Presbyterian Hospital on the Columbia University Medical Center campus to create training (N=20) and testing (N=10) datasets. We utilized the Think-aloud protocol to gauge how clinical researchers identify and use major eligibility criteria to prescreen patients for clinical trials during an audio-recorded interview. A focus group session was held to understand the current prescreening process and investigate how it could be optimized to maximize recruitment rates. Using the grounded theory method, we annotated transcriptions to discover user rationale and desiderata behind major eligibility criteria in breast cancer clinical trials, which were later evaluated in a follow-up survey.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26958302PMC4765677What 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.