Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32469901›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Patient preferences when searching for clinical trials and adherence of study records to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance in key registry data fields.

Thomas M Schindler, Frank Grieger, Anna Zak, Ramona Rorig, Kavya Chowdary Konka, Anna Ellsworth, Christopher Pfitzer, Keir Hodge, Christine Crandall, TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Recommending Clinical Trials for Online Patient Cases using Artificial Intelligence.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
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

10 authors.

Thomas M SchindlerMedical Writing Europe, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, Biberach, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7845-3048
Frank GriegerData Disclosure Governance & Standards, UCB BioSciences GmbH, Monheim, Germany.
Anna ZakClinical Data Disclosure & Transparency, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Rahway, New Jersey, United States of America.
Ramona RorigClinical Trial Disclosure, Medical and Development, Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, Illinois, United States of America.
Kavya Chowdary KonkaTrial Disclosure, AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Anna EllsworthUCB Biosciences Inc, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.
Christopher PfitzerTransparency Operations, UCB BioSciences, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1040-9590
Keir HodgePDG Neuroscience, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Christine CrandallGSK, Clinical Project Management, Collegeville, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9578-261X
TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ClinicalTrials.gov was started with the intention to create a consumer-friendly database for patients and others in search of information on clinical trials. However, there is no research on whether the content of ClinicalTrials.gov aligns with patient preferences. The TransCelerate Clinical Research Access & Information Exchange Initiative convened patient advisory boards and conducted a global online survey (N = 1070) to determine patient preferences when searching for clinical trials for participation. Patient feedback and ClinicalTrials.gov guidance documents were used to construct instruments to assess patient focus and guidance adherence of the Brief Title (a short lay title of the clinical trial) and Brief Summary (a high-level summary of study features) data fields in a representative sample (N = 346) of ClinicalTrials.gov records of interventional trials. When searching for clinical trials, survey participants rated condition (66.4%), trial location (57.0%), trial dates (52.9%), age and gender (48.6%), and health measurements (i.e., what the study measures) (45.5%) as the most important items. When presented with a list of trials from an initial search, participants saw condition, brief summary, study drug name, and brief title as the most helpful items. In a Brief Title, they wanted condition, health measurements, participant age, and study drug name. For Brief Summaries, participants preferred additional information on treatment duration, condition, study goal, health measurements, and frequency of visits. The assessment of patient focus in a representative sample of current ClinicalTrials.gov records showed that patient focus was underdeveloped as study records achieved only 52% (brief titles) and 50% (brief summaries) of the best possible score. The analysis of adherence to ClinicalTrials.gov guidance showed better scores (brief titles 69%, brief summaries 66%). We identified key information elements for registry users when evaluating clinical trials for participation. We found that aspects of patient focus are not common in current ClinicalTrials.gov entries. To support more user-friendly study records, we developed a tool to assess the quality of the plain language fields in study records prior to submission.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualClinical Trials as TopicFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansInformation DisseminationInternetMaleMedical RecordsMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceRegistriesResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32469901
PMCPMC7259626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.