Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41673129›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Success rates of American clinical oncology trials by geographic factors.

Sumeet Patiyal, Alejandro A Schäffer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

2 authors.

Sumeet PatiyalCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Alejandro A SchäfferCancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA. alejandro.schaffer@nih.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aim to evaluate relationships between the locations and success rates of United States oncology clinical trials by analyzing geographic features such as median income and proportion of practicing oncologists by ZIP code. A dataset of 15,658 trials with at least one site in the 50 states or the District of Columbia was collected by integrating trial outcomes curated in Trialtrove, locations from ClinicalTrials.gov, incomes from the U.S. Census, oncologist locations from the Center for Medicare Services and other sources. We found that ZIP codes in which trials are conducted are skewed away from lower median incomes (p = 4.05e-08, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). When ZIP codes were partitioned into lower, middle and upper terciles of median income, success rates by ZIP code were significantly lower in the low-income range relative to the middle- and higher-income ranges (lowest vs. highest p < 0.0001, OR 1.13 [1.10-1.16]). Trials conducted in more ZIP codes are significantly more likely to succeed than trials conducted in fewer ZIP codes. We identified candidate ZIP codes with sufficient patient populations and practicing oncologists to support clinical oncology trials but have never had a trial previously.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicMedical OncologyNeoplasmsGeographyHumansIncomeUnited StatesCancer clinical trialsClinical trial outcomesGeographic analysisMedian income

Identifiers

PMID41673129
PMCPMC12966375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.