Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39763593›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

The literacy barrier in clinical trial consents: a retrospective analysis.

Fatima N Mirza, Eric Wu, Hael F Abdulrazeq, Ian D Connolly, Oliver Y Tang, Cheryl K Zogg, Theresa Williamson, Paul F Galamaga, G Dean Roye, Prakash Sampath and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Real-World Molecular Testing in European Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

20 authors.

Fatima N MirzaBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Eric WuStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Hael F AbdulrazeqBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Ian D ConnollyHarvard University, MA, USA.
Oliver Y TangUniversity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Cheryl K ZoggYale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Theresa WilliamsonHarvard University, MA, USA.
Paul F GalamagaRatcliffe Harten Galamaga LLP, Providence, RI, USA.
G Dean RoyeBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Prakash SampathBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Albert E TelfeianBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Abrar A QureshiBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Michael W GroffYale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
John H ShinHarvard University, MA, USA.
Wael F AsaadBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Tiffany J LibbyBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Ziya L GokaslanBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Isaac S KohaneHarvard University, MA, USA.
James ZouStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rohaid AliBrown University, Providence, RI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceClinical trialsReadability

Identifiers

PMID39763593
PMCPMC11701435

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.