ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2022
Mobile Clinical Trial Matching Technology in Medical Oncology Clinic: A Pilot Feasibility Study.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world evaluation of user engagement with an artificial intelligence-powered clinical trial application in oncology.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe internet is a common source of health information for patients and can be leveraged to provide patient-facing clinical trial information. This pilot study integrated an online prostate cancer clinical trial matching technology, called Trial Library (TL), in an academic medical oncology clinic from February 2019 to April 2021. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis is a single-arm interventional pilot study among patients with a known prostate cancer diagnosis. Participants were given access to TL before seeing a provider. The primary and secondary study end points were the overall satisfaction with TL and the proportion of participant-initiated clinical trial discussion with providers after exposure to TL, respectively. The null hypothesis or true satisfaction rate (acceptability) was tested against a one-sided alternative and was rejected if 29 or more satisfactions were observed.
resultsAmong 272 patients approached, 66 provided informed consent to participate in the study. The mean age was 70.8 years (standard deviation = 7.9). The majority of participants were White (82%) and had metastases present at the time of enrollment (65%). The baseline clinical trial discussion rate ascertained via electronic medical record review was 28%. After accessing TL, a significantly larger proportion of participants (48.5%) discussed clinical trials during the clinic visit (
conclusionAccess to TL resulted in a significant increase in patient-initiated discussions regarding clinical trials and an increase in interest in clinical trial participation although these data do not address if this resulted in increased accrual to clinical trials. The satisfaction rate did not meet the target to reject the null hypothesis, suggesting the need for iterative design of patient-facing health information.
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.