ArticlePediatric blood & cancer2025
Disparities in Clinical Trial Participation in Children and Adolescent Patients With a Hematologic Malignancy.
Article in Pediatric blood & cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundLow socioeconomic groups and racial/ethnic minorities continue to experience pediatric cancer outcome disparities, and remain underrepresented in clinical trials. It is vital to understand why underrepresentation exists and to address it in order to generalize trial findings to all groups. This study examined institutional disparities in clinical trial offerings and enrollment for children and adolescents with hematologic malignancies. PROCEDURE: We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of clinical trial participation in patients less than 18 years old with newly diagnosed hematologic malignancies between 2011 and 2017. Patient demographics (e.g., parental primary language, race) were abstracted, and patient address at diagnosis was geocoded to characterize neighborhood socioeconomic status. Endpoints were frontline therapeutic clinical trial offering and enrollment. Multivariable logistic regression was constructed to examine predictors of trial enrollment.
resultsAmong 464 trial-eligible patients, 90.1% were offered clinical trial participation, of which 85% enrolled. There was no significant difference in enrollment by age, sex, parental primary language, neighborhood socioeconomic status, or rurality. However, non-Hispanic Black patients [OR: 0.4 (95% CI: 0.20-0.8), p = 0.01] and patients with lymphoma [OR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.04-0.6), p = 0.01] were less likely to enroll on a clinical trial in our adjusted analysis.
conclusionsDespite a high institutional clinical trial enrollment rate for eligible patients, we found racial and disease-type disparities. Further work is needed to more granularly determine reasons for not offering trial participation or for not enrolling. By better-defining barriers to clinical trial enrollment, targeted institution-level interventions can be created to improve trial enrollment and reduce outcome disparities.
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.