ArticleIrish journal of medical science2022
The cost of cancer care: how far would you go for a trial?
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Clinical Trial Participation on Quality of Life in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Financial Toxicity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An Issue in Need of Clarity and Solutions.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Estimating the cost of visiting hospital outpatient.BMJ neurology open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials are often considered the gold standard in cancer care. However, patients face barriers in trial participation including distances to cancer centres and personal costs including changing employment status, cost of medications, inpatient admissions, and parking tariffs.
aimOur aim was to compare the distances patients travelled for clinical trials compared to those receiving standard systemic anticancer therapy (SACT). We also investigated the additional costs associated with this.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of electronic patient medical records. The distance from the patients' home address to Beaumont was calculated as a one-way journey in kilometres. Patients attending for clinical trials were compared to those receiving standard of care SACT.
resultsA total of 271 patients receiving standard SACT over a 5-day period and 111 patients enrolled on 24 clinical trials were included. The median one-way distance travelled by patients enrolled in clinical trials was 41.4 km, compared to 14 km in those patients' receiving standard of care SACT. The median estimated cost was €13 vs €4.20 for those enrolled on clinical trials compared to those receiving standard of care treatment, respectively.
conclusionPatients enrolled on clinical trials often travel more than twice as far to receive their anti-cancer treatment compared to those receiving standard of care SACT and incur an increased cost of travel expenses.
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.