ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Adult neuro-oncology trials in the United States over 5 decades: Analysis of trials completion rate to guide the path forward.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical microscopy predictions of focal recurrence in glioblastoma.Science advances · 2026Article
- Applications of transcranial focused ultrasound for primary brain tumors.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026Review
- Approaches in analyzing predictors of trial failure: a scoping review and meta-epidemiological study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Navigating the Central Nervous System (CNS): A Pharmacokinetic Approach to the Treatment of CNS Tumors, Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM), in Particular.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Practical and statistical aspects of subgroup analyses in surgical neuro-oncology: A comprehensive review from the PIONEER consortium.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Strategies to Improve Drug Delivery Across the Blood-Brain Barrier for Glioblastoma.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical trials are important to close the gap between therapeutic unmet needs and scientific advances in neuro-oncology. This study analyzes the landscape of neuro-oncology trials to identify completion rates and guide strategies for the path forward. Methods: US-registered adult neuro-oncology clinical trials were extracted from www.clinicaltrials.gov (1966-2019), including funding source, trial type, scope, phase, and subjects' demographics. Completed trials defined as those that had completed participants' examinations or intervention administration for the purpose of the final collection of data for the primary outcome were dichotomized against those that failed to reach completion. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to detect differences across factors comparing the last 2 decades (2000-2009, 2010-2019). Results: Our search yielded 4522 trials, of which 1257 are eligible for this study. In 25 US states, neuro-oncology trial availability is <0.85/100,000 population. Comparing the past 2 decades, trial completion rate decreased from 88% to 64% ( Conclusions: Our study is the first report on the neuro-oncology clinical trial landscape in the United States and supports the development of strategies to further improve access to these trials. Additionally, attention is needed to identify and modify other factors contributing to lack of completion.
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.