ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
The literacy barrier in clinical trial consents: a retrospective analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding the small print: a 5-year review of readability in phase I trial information leaflets.Trials · 2026Article
- Article
- Eligibility criteria and study phase limit racial/ethnic enrollment in oncology clinical trials.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Optimization of University Counseling Consent Forms With Large Language Models: Multidimensional Comparative Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for simplifying non-English medical consent with clinician involvement.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Readability of Clinical Trial Content for Patients on Pharmaceutical Company Websites.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2026Article
- Real-World Molecular Testing in European Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Article
- Readability of Public-Facing Urologic Oncology Trial Summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Representation is power: traditional, hybrid, and digital recruitment results from a non-randomized clinical trial engaging adolescents.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing accessibility and impact of digitally enabled clinical trials: the WeShare engagement and equity toolkit.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Historically, the readability of consent forms in medicine have been above the average reading level of patients. This can create challenges in obtaining truly informed consent, but the implications on clinical trial participant retention are not fully explored. To address this gap, we seek to analyze clinical trial consent forms by determining their readability and relationship with the associated trial's participant dropout rate. Additionally, we explore a potential method for simplifying these forms. Methods: We analyzed the readability of consent forms of federally funded interventional clinical trials, which were completed in the United States on or before January 1, 2023, and were posted online and made accessible on ClinicalTrials.gov. We correlated their readability with trial dropout rates. As an exploratory analysis, a subset of these forms was simplified using a large language model, with expert medicolegal review. Findings: Across 798 included federally funded trials, the mean (±SD) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of their consent forms was 12.0 ± 1.3, equivalent to a high school graduate reading level and significantly higher than the 8th grade average reading level of adults in the United States (U.S.) (P < 0.001). In risk-adjusted analyses, each additional Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level increase in a clinical trial's consent form was associated with a 16% higher dropout rate (incidence rate ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.22; P < 0.001). Our exploratory analysis of a simplification method showed promising results in lowering the reading level while preserving medicolegal content. Interpretation: The average readability of informed consent forms of federally funded clinical trials exceeds the reading comprehension skills of the majority of adults in the U.S., potentially undermining clinical trial participant retention rates. Future work should explore the use of large language models and other tools as possible means to close this literacy barrier and potentially enhancing clinical trial participation. Funding: This research received no sources of funding. The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
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.