ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2019
How current reporting practices may mask differences: A call for examining cancer-specific demographic enrollment patterns in cancer treatment clinical trials.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a Multisite Financial Reimbursement Program in Cancer Clinical Trials Integrated With Patient Navigation: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.JCO oncology practice · 2022Trial
- The role of social, economic, and medical marginalization in cancer clinical trial participation inequities: A systematic review.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Clinical Trial Enrollment Among Women With Gynecologic Cancer.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES).PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Reimagining diversity in multiple myeloma clinical trials.Hematological oncology · 2022Article
- Age Is Just a Number: Considerations for Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Does the COVID-19 outbreak identify a broader need for an urgent transformation of cancer clinical trials research?Contemporary clinical trials · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA lack of diversity among clinical trial (CT) participants remains a critical problem. Few studies have examined recruitment variability in cancer treatment CTs by cancer type. Given the increasing organ-specific specialization of oncologic care, an understanding of this variability may affect institutional recruitment practices.
methodsThis study examines three data sources from 2010 through 2014. The analyzed sample includes 3,580 CT participants identified in the institutional Clinical Trials Management System (CTMS) database and 20,305 incident cases of invasive cancer within a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) institutional catchment area. A total of 341,114 incident cases of primary invasive cancer were identified through the California Cancer Registry (CCR). The primary study measurements were sociodemographic characteristics of the three populations (age, sex, race/ethnicity, and health insurance).
resultsRacial/ethnic disparities were observed, with more incident cases of Whites seen in cancer center (68%) and enrolled in CTs (72%) compared to incident cases in catchment area (67%) (p < 0.001) overall. More older adults (65) were enrolled in prostate cancer CTs (58%) than seen in cancer center (45%) (p < 0.001). Alternatively, fewer older adults were enrolled in breast and colorectal CTs than seen in cancer center (p < 0.001). Among colon (p < 0.001), breast (p < 0.001), and prostate (p<0.001) cancer types, insurance type significantly varied between incident cases in catchment area, cancer center, and among CT participants. For colorectal cancer, no difference in sex distribution was observed overall. A significant difference in insurance type within each cancer type was observed (p < 0.001).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that reporting overall recruitment frequencies may mask differences by cancer type.
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.