ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Institutional and Regional Variations in Access to Clinical Trials and Next-Generation Sequencing in Turkish Oncology Centers.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical trials provide opportunities for patients with cancer to access novel treatment regimens in many developing countries. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) plays a key role in the treatment of various cancer types in today's clinical practice. The aim of this study is to investigate accessibility of clinical trials and NGS in Turkish oncology clinics. MATERIAL AND METHODS This cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical oncologists in 86 oncology centers across Turkey. Responses to a 14-item questionnaire were analyzed based on the centers. Final analyses included 86 oncology centers across 38 cities (n=86). These centers were classified as public (n=63) and private (n=23) hospitals and as those in the 3 largest metropolitan areas (n=33) or in other cities (n=53). RESULTS The median numbers of ongoing clinical trials were 1 (0-50) and 2 (0-50) in public and private hospitals, respectively (P=0.961), and clinical trials actively recruiting were 0 (0-42) and 0 (0-30) in public and private hospitals, respectively (P=0.862). Hospitals located in the largest metropolitan areas had significantly higher median numbers of ongoing clinical trials, 2 (0-50) vs 0 (0-25) (P=0.002), and actively recruiting trials, 2 (0-42) vs 0 (0-25) (P=0.008), compared with hospitals in other cities The availability of NGS was also higher in metropolitan hospitals (75.8%) than in other cities (20.8%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Geographic location creates significant inequalities in the number of clinical trials and access NGS in oncology centers, in contrast to the uniform coverage provided by general health insurance. Tailored region-specific improvements are required to enhance cancer care in Turkey.
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.