ArticleAnnual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference2016
Assessing the population representativeness of colorectal cancer treatment clinical trials.
Article in Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Annual International Conference, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Semantic categorization of Chinese eligibility criteria in clinical trials using machine learning methods.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- A 10-year review of survival among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancers: a population-based study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2020Review
- Analysis of Temporal Constraints in Qualitative Eligibility Criteria of Cancer Clinical Studies.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The generalizability (external validity) of clinical trials has long been a concern for both clinical research community as well as the general public. Results of trials that do not represent the target population may not be applicable to the broader patient population. In this study, we used a previously published metric Generalizability Index for Study Traits (GIST) to assess the population representativeness of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment trials. Our analysis showed that the quantitative eligibility criteria of CRC trials are in general not restrictive. However, the qualitative eligibility criteria in these trials are with moderate or strict restrictions, which may impact their population representativeness of the real-world patient population.
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.