ArticleJAMA network open2021
Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Clinical Trial Participants and Nonparticipants Using Electronic Health Record Data.
Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Levels of evidence supporting American, European and international guidelines in psychiatry, 2014-2024: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis.BMJ mental health · 2026Pooled it
- Utilization of EHRs for clinical trials: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Pooled it
- Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Pooled it
- Structured Telehealth Community Health Worker-Clinician Feedback and Diabetes Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Vaping to quit smoking: Qualitative study of people receiving opioid agonist treatment.Drug and alcohol review · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Breast Cancer (MBSR(BC)) a Treatment for Cancer-related Cognitive Impairment (CRCI): A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2025Trial
- Exploring documentation in Person-centred care: A content analysis of care plans.International journal of older people nursing · 2022Trial
- Is the Current Screening Availability for Early Stages of Type 1 Diabetes in Germany Related to the Population-Based Frequency of Diabetic Ketoacidosis at Clinical Manifestation in Children and Adolescents.Pediatric diabetes · 2026Article
- Patterns and outcomes of real-world high-flow nasal cannula use: a multi-hospital retrospective cohort study.Critical care science · 2026Observational
- Association of Sepsis Survivor Subtypes With Long-Term Mortality and Disability After Discharge: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Testing the Transportability of Sepsis Subtypes to Patients With ARDS for Postdischarge Outcomes.CHEST critical care · 2025Article
- A New Era, New Risks: The Cardio-Oncology Perspective on Immunotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Remotely Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults With an Eating Disorder: Retrospective Analysis of a Real-World Patient Sample.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Essentials: A Guide to Understanding, Applying, and Interpreting Adverse Event Data Reported to FAERS.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Navigating challenging patient factors in systemic therapy for head and neck cancer.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Barriers and Opportunities for Cancer Clinical Trials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The target trial framework in global health research: barriers and opportunities.Journal of global health · 2025Review
- Impact of recurrence on employment, finances, and productivity for early-stage cancer patients and caregivers: US survey.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- From Basic to Extra Features: Hypergraph Transformer Pretrain-then-Finetuning for Balanced Clinical Predictions on EHR.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2024Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Importance: Assessing generalizability of clinical trials is important to ensure appropriate application of interventions, but most assessments provide minimal granularity on comparisons of clinical characteristics. Objective: To assess the extent of underlying clinical differences between clinical trial participants and nonparticipants by using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data obtained from a single academic medical center between September 1996 and January 2019 to identify 1645 clinical trial participants from a diverse set of 202 available trials conducted at the center. Using an aggregated resampling procedure, nonparticipants were matched to participants 1:1 based on trial conditions, number of recent visits to a health care professional, and calendar time. Exposures: Clinical trial enrollment vs no enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was standardized differences in clinical characteristics between participants and nonparticipants in clinical trials stratified into the 4 most common disease domains. Results: This cross-sectional study included 1645 participants from 202 trials (929 [56.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 54.65 [21.38] years) and an aggregated set of 1645 nonparticipants (855 [52.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 57.24 [21.91] years). The most common disease domains for the selected trials were neoplastic disease (86 trials; 737 participants), disorders of the digestive system (31 trials; 321 participants), inflammatory disorders (28 trials; 276 participants), and disorders of the cardiovascular system (27 trials; 319 participants); trials could qualify for multiple disease domains. Among 31 conditions, the percentage of conditions for which the prevalence was lower among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.5% (20 conditions) for neoplastic disease trials, 61.3% (19) for digestive system trials, 58.1% (18) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 38.7% (12) for cardiovascular system trials. Among 17 medications, the percentage of medications for which use was less among participants than among nonparticipants per standardized differences was 64.7% (11) for neoplastic disease trials, 58.8% (10) for digestive system trials, 88.2% (15) for inflammatory disorder trials, and 52.9% (9) for cardiovascular system trials. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a combination of electronic health record and trial enrollment data, this study found that clinical trial participants had fewer comorbidities and less use of medication than nonparticipants across a variety of disease domains. Combining trial enrollment data with electronic health record data may be useful for better understanding of the generalizability of trial results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.