ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Readability of Cancer Clinical Trials Websites.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Listening to Australians with ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey investigating clinical trials awareness, information access and participation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability of Clinical Trial Content for Patients on Pharmaceutical Company Websites.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Readability of Public-Facing Urologic Oncology Trial Summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Assessment of readability of informed consent forms of gynecologic cancer clinical trials: A (Potential) barrier to enrollment?Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Article
- AI meets informed consent: a new era for clinical trial communication.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Exploring clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Simplifying informed consent as a universal precaution.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Quality of Web-Based Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Health Care Transition: Website Content Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2023Article
- The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?The Laryngoscope · 2023Review
- Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting Arabic speakers: empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical trials are critically important for the development of new cancer treatments. According to recent estimates, however, clinical trial enrollment is only about 8%. Lack of patient understanding or awareness of clinical trials is one reason for the low rate of participation. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the readability of cancer clinical trial websites designed to educate the general public and patients about clinical trials. Nearly 90% of Americans use Google to search for health-related information. We conducted a Google Chrome Incognito search in 2018 using the keywords "cancer clinical trial" and "cancer clinical trials." Content of the 100 cancer clinical trial websites was analyzed using an online readability panel consisting of Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scales. Reading level difficulty was assessed and compared between commercial versus non-commercial URL extensions. Content readability was found to be "difficult" (10.7 grade level). No significant difference in readability, overall, and between commercial and non-commercial URL extensions was found using 4/5 measures of readability; 90.9% of commercial versus 49.4% of non-commercial websites were written at a >10th grade (
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.