ArticlePloS one2025
Cross sectional analysis of clinical trials search results for cancer patients using a navigator-assisted clinical trials search using five different search engines.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials play a critical role in providing patients with access to novel treatments and therapies. However, limitations in clinical trial search engines impede healthcare professionals and patients from accessing the most suitable clinical trials. This study aimed to address this issue by conducting a critical analysis of several prominent clinical trial search websites, including ClinicalTrials.gov, Canadian Cancer Trials, Clinical Trials Ontario, Canadian Cancer Clinical Trials Network, and Q-CROC.
methodsTo identify areas for improvement, three skilled clinical trials navigators independently curated clinical trial searches for 18 cancer patients over a 2-month period. After verifying patients' eligibility for enrollment in clinical trials, the navigators documented their search outcomes and identified several limitations in the current search engines.
resultsCareful curation of clinical trials for 18 patients revealed 247 trials. However, 140 eligible trials out of 247 (57% with 95% binomial confidence interval [50%, 63%]) were found only on alternative websites yet not discoverable on the initial ClinicalTrials.gov searches, even though they were listed on ClinicalTrials.gov. Our study revealed multiple deficiencies in available clinical trials search engines. Lack of reliability was repeatedly identified in all search engines. DISCUSSION: This study highlights that the current clinical trial search system needs improvement to enhance patient outcomes. It needs to be highlighted that these searches were performed by trained and dedicated clinical trials navigators. The challenges facing patients and health care professionals in navigating would be much greater. The findings from this study can serve as a foundation for the development of enhanced search engines with improved functionality, which will enable healthcare professionals and patients to find and access the most suitable clinical trials with greater ease and accuracy.
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.