Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39502497›Full record

ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2024

Assessing the Uptake of the Lung Cancer Core Outcome Set: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Andrew V Tran, Brody Dennis, Matthew Rashid, Kyle Fitzgerald, Garrett Jones, Kimberly Magana, Jay Modi, Trevor Magee, Shaelyn Ward, Griffin Hughes and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

12 authors.

Andrew V TranOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Brody DennisOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Matthew RashidOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Kyle FitzgeraldOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Garrett JonesOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Kimberly MaganaOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Jay ModiOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Trevor MageeOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Shaelyn WardOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Griffin HughesOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Alicia Ito FordOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A core outcome set (COS) helps standardize outcome measurements across clinical trials. Although lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths, research exploring COS implementation across lung cancer trials remains limited. We aim to analyze the uptake of the lung cancer COS and identify potential gaps in COS adherence. Methods: On June 26, 2023, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials that evaluated lung cancer interventions. Our sample consisted of studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between September 2011 and June 2023. In a masked and duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data regarding trial characteristics and COS adoption. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the adherence of lung cancer COS before and after its publication. Results: Of the 626 observed trials, we found no overall significant difference in lung cancer COS uptake pre- and post-publication (0.01%, 95% confidence interval: -0.16% to 0.19%, Conclusions: Despite the advantages of COS implementation, adherence across lung cancer clinical trials remains alarmingly low-which could compromise data reliability and patient care. Our findings showcase these inconsistencies and emphasize the need for proactive approaches to improve uptake.

Indexed as

AdherenceClinical trialsCore outcome setsLung cancerUptake

Identifiers

PMID39502497
PMCPMC11532957

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.