Evidence mapPaperPMID 39758709Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025

"Developing a manual clinical trials screening process in a diverse southern gynecologic oncology practice".

M Klein, H Pirzadah, Y Magharehabed, A Chapple, N Nair, A Jernigan, T Castellano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

M KleinMS4, The George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, United States.
H PirzadahMS3, The Louisiana State University - New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.
Y MagharehabedMS3, The Louisiana State University - New Orleans School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.
A ChappleLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, Division of Biostatistics, New Orleans, LA, United States.
N NairUniversity of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Miami, FL, United States.
A JerniganLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New Orleans, LA, United States.
T CastellanoLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: There is no standard clinical trial screening process in gynecologic oncology. In our low resource, highly diverse gynecologic oncology patient population, we sought to create an equitable, adaptable, manual screening process. Methods: Our objective is to describe our clinical trial screening process and success in improving trial enrollment. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved quality improvement (QI) project was implemented in July 2022 to evaluate trial access. Screenable events were defined. Potential patients were those with a screenable event: new patients or diagnoses, regimen changes, progressions, and recurrences. Events were categorized into screen positive or screened no trial available. Screen positives were further categorized as screen positive, enrollment failure events or enrollments. Data about patients were collected via weekly research team meetings. Monthly meetings occurred to review progress. The data were compared to trials available, number of patients with trail available, and those that enrolled. Reasons for enrollment fails were tracked. Results: Over time, "screen no trial available" (SNTA) rates stayed stable, but enrollment rates increased. Patient preference accounted for 32.8 % of enrollment failures (n = 42), pre-existing symptoms 23.4 % (n = 30), and location 21.1 % (n = 27). During increased employee turnover, there was a rise in enrollment fails due to staffing (n = 6, 4.7 %). We describe an effective process of clearly defining and tracking our patient population and 'screenable events' for which all patients are screened and offered trial participation if eligible. Conclusions: We show that we improved understanding of the patient population, built a clinical trial portfolio better matched to population served, exceeded national averages for enrolling patients on trials, and are improving number eligible.

Identifiers

PMID39758709
PMCPMC11699326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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 Socratic graph.