ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
Assessment of readability of informed consent forms of gynecologic cancer clinical trials: A (Potential) barrier to enrollment?
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Limited English language proficiency (LEP) is associated with decreased clinical trial enrollment. Notably, the AMA and the NIH recommend that patient materials have a readability level commensurate to a sixth- through eighth-grade reading level. This study evaluated the readability of informed consent forms for gynecologic oncology clinical trials. Methods: This was an IRB-exempt, retrospective, quantitative analysis of for gynecologic oncology clinical trials opened at Ohio State University, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated institution, from 1/1/2017 through 12/31/2022. We analyzed patient informed consent documents from gynecologic oncology clinical trials. The researchers assessed the readability of these consent forms using standardized readability tests to determine their complexity and readability levels. Readability was assessed using Readability Studio Professional Edition software for five metrics. Results: A total of 103 informed consent forms were reviewed, capturing trials for ovarian (n = 41, 39.8 %), endometrial (n = 21, 20.4 %), cervical (n = 14, 13.6 %), vulvar/vaginal cancers (n = 3, 2.9 %), as well as multi-disease site/basket trials (n = 24, 23.3 %). Most informed consent forms were from industry-sponsored studies (n = 45, 43.7 %) and NCI, NRG Oncology, and GOG Foundation (GOG) sponsored studies (n = 42, 40.8 %). The mean reading grade-level for all analyses was 13th grade, specifically 13 for ovarian cancer, 12.02 for endometrial, 12.9 for cervical, 12.8 for vulva/vaginal, and 13.0 for others (p = 0.26). There was no difference (p = 0.21) between NCI/NRG/GOG studies (13.3) and industry-sponsored trials (13.6). Conclusions: In this study, we found that current informed consent forms do not meet current recommended readability standards for medical literature regardless of disease site or sponsor. This is an opportunity to reduce disparities and improve patient understanding and involvement in clinical trials.
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.