Comparative Analysis of Geriatric and Adult Drug Clinical Trials on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Zhe He, Aisha Langford

Abstract readMeta-Analysis

In one paragraph

Synthesis in Studies in health technology and informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Zhe HeSchool of Information, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

Aisha LangfordDepartment of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Bridging the Semantic Gap Between Research Eligibility Criteria and Clinical DataR01LM009886 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WENG, CHUNHUA · 2009 to 2020

$5.3M

NLM NIH HHS R01 LM009886

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials generate gold standard medical evidence, but are often criticized for the lack of population representativeness. We performed a comparative meta-analysis of drug trials that focus on older adults (>= 65 years old) and adults (18-64 years old). The major finding is that a higher percentage of geriatric drug trials were terminated or withdrawn than that of adult drug trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsHumansMiddle AgedResearch DesignYoung AdultClinical TrialsGeriatric ResearchHealth Disparities

Identifiers

PMID29295350

PMCPMC5884139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC

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.