Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34765799›Full record

ReviewContemporary clinical trials communications2021

Trial-level factors affecting accrual and completion of oncology clinical trials: A systematic review.

Cherie L Hauck, Teresa J Kelechi, Kathleen B Cartmell, Martina Mueller

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical research in private hospitals: a perspective.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
    Review
  9. A Multi-Model LLM Consensus Framework to Identify EHR-Predictable Eligibility Criteria in NSCLC Immunotherapy Trials.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Patient Experience, Adverse Event Reporting, and Clinical Trial Design.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    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

4 authors.

Cherie L HauckMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas St., Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Teresa J KelechiMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas St., Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Kathleen B CartmellClemson University, Department of Public Health Sciences, 503 Edwards Hall, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA.
Martina MuellerMedical University of South Carolina, College of Nursing, 99 Jonathan Lucas St., Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States. Clinical trials translate basic science discoveries into treatments needed by cancer patients. Inadequate accrual of trial participants is one of the most significant barriers to the completion of oncology clinical trials.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials, identify gaps in the literature, and indicate opportunities for future research.

designA systematic review of the literature on trial-level factors that affect accrual and/or completion of oncology clinical trials was performed. Searches in PubMed and Scopus identified 6582 studies. Based on eligibility criteria, 16 studies were selected for the review. Results were analyzed according to the following: a) background factors, b) disease-related, c) treatment-related, and d) trial design.

resultsBackground factors that were investigated in relation to oncology clinical trial accrual and/or completion included sponsor, number and location of participating institutions, competing trials, time of trial opening, and fast-track status. Disease-related factors included the annual incidence and type(s) of targeted cancer. Several types of treatment such as drugs, radiation and surgery were examined in the studies. Trial design factors included trial development time, eligibility criteria, randomization, sample size, trial phase, placebo use, and required protocol procedures and their timing.

conclusionWith low patient participation rates in oncology clinical trials that hold promise for future treatments, it is imperative that trial-level factors affecting accrual be identified and addressed to facilitate the completion of trials.

Indexed as

AccrualCancerClinical trialEnrollmentOncology

Identifiers

PMID34765799
PMCPMC8573122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.