ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025
"Developing a manual clinical trials screening process in a diverse southern gynecologic oncology practice".
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial Participation Among Families From Historically Marginalized Groups.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Article
- Transforming clinical trial enrollment: Leveraging technology and innovation to reach patients where they are.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.