ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2019
Evaluating the decisions of glioma patients regarding clinical trial participation: a retrospective single provider review.
Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- "When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Disparities in patient enrollment of spinal oncology clinical trials.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- The impact of socioeconomic status on glioma survival: a retrospective analysis.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Disparities in the availability of and access to neuro-oncology trial-supporting infrastructure in the United States.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to recruitment of rural patients to cancer clinical trials.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Review
- Low-Grade Glioma Clinical Trials in the United States: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Translational landscape of glioblastoma immunotherapy for physicians: guiding clinical practice with basic scientific evidence.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2022Review
- Prostate cancer patients' self-reported participation in research: an examination of racial/ethnic disparities.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical trial accrual is vital to advancing care. A single study elucidated demographic data correlating with glioma patients' clinical trial enrollment. However, it did not investigate the underlying decision-making process for non-participation. In this study, we seek to understand this key aspect of patient accrual. All notes for glioma patients seen by a single neuro-oncologist from July 2010 to May 2017 were examined for mention of clinical trial offerings. When a trial was declined, the patient's reasoning was recorded along with the following: diagnosis, KPS, extent of resection, age, gender, race, marital status, income group, religion, trial offered at initial visit versus subsequent, and distance from trial site. Of 279 consecutive glioma patients, 88 were eligible for and offered a clinical trial. Fifty-seven accepted (65%), and 31 (35%) declined participation (Fig. 1). Of those offered a clinical trial, patients with glioblastoma (GBM) were significantly more likely to accept (44 out of 57 (77%) vs. 13 out of 57 (23%), p =0.03). After we adjusted for gender and travel distance, GBM was the only significant predictor of clinical trial acceptance, with an odds ratio of 3.18 (95% CI 1.17, 8.61, p =0.02). Reasons cited for non-participation included: travel distance (39%), lack of interest (39%), visit frequency (16%), and fear of randomization (6%). This study clarified for the first time individual glioma patient rationale for non-participation and potential areas for improving enrollment. Allowing off-site treatment centers or telemedicine visits may entice rural patients to participate. Visit frequency should be carefully considered and minimized whenever possible. Further prospective study of rationale for non-participation may improve enrollment over time.
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.