ArticleCancer medicine2023
Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Recommendations for the use of clinical outcome assessments in rare disease drug development.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Clinical outcome assessment trends in neuro-oncology trials.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.
methodsOncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.
resultsEighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.
conclusionWhile COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.
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.