ArticleCancer medicine2024
"The Truth Is, We Must Miss Some": A Qualitative Study of the Patient Eligibility Screening Process, and Automation Perspectives, for Cancer Clinical Trials.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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.
- AI-based augmentation of oncology clinical trials.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- TrialTriage, a Semiautonomous Prescreening Workflow for Resolving Ambiguity in Phase I Oncology Trial Eligibility: Development and Proof-of-Concept Study Using Synthetic Cases.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Brain Functional and Structural Changes of Breast Cancer After Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Neuropsychology review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecruitment of cancer patients into clinical trials (CTs) is a challenge. We aimed to explore how patient eligibility assessment is conducted in practice, what factors support or hinder this process, and to assess the potential usefulness of Clinical Trial Recruitment Support Systems (CTRSS) for patient-to-trial matching.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews in France with healthcare professionals involved in cancer CTs and experts on trial recruitment. We focused on the stages in-between trial feasibility, and patient information and consent. Interviews were recorded, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 framework to organize our results.
resultsWe interviewed 25 participants. We identified common steps for cancer patient eligibility assessment: prescreening under medical supervision, followed by the validation of patient-trial matching based on manual chart review. This process built on rich interactions between clinicians, other professionals (clinical research assistants, data scientists, medical coding experts), and patients. Technological factors, mainly related to data infrastructure (both for patient data and trial data), and organizational factors (research culture, incentives, formal and informal research networks) mediated the performance of the recruitment process. Participants had mixed feelings towards CTRSSs; they welcomed automated pre-screening but insisted on manual verification. Given the necessary collaborative nature of multisite trials, coordinated efforts to support a common data infrastructure could be helpful.
conclusionsMaterial, organizational, and human factors affect cancer patient eligibility assessment for CTs. Patient-to-trial matching tools bear potential, but good understanding of the ecosystem, including stakeholders' motivations, is a prerequisite.
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.