ReviewThe oncologist2025
Characteristics of clinical trials associated with appeal and return on investment to participants: a review and framework.
Review in The oncologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite decades of investment in clinical research infrastructure, patient participation in clinical trials remains strikingly low. In the United States, fewer than 1 in 10 adults report ever being invited to participate in a clinical trial, and among those, less than half ultimately enroll. In oncology, across all adult cancer patients, only about 8% enroll in a clinical trial, regardless of eligibility or trial availability. Active engagement of their patients in cancer clinical trials substantially enhances scientific knowledge, and patient participation is required to obtain approval for novel therapeutics. Analyses focusing on evaluating whether clinical trial participation improves survival for participants have yielded conflicting results. Yet, there is limited data or metrics to assess the specific attributes of oncology trials that hold greater appeal or return on investment to participants, limiting researchers' ability to determine if these factors vary across different populations. Our group demonstrated that patients with limited English proficiency were unlikely to participate in studies not sponsored by industry as compared to industry-sponsored studies. If trial participation for specific populations can differ by sponsor type, it could also differ by the trial's appeal or return on investment. While the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minority groups in trials is attributed to multiple factors, it is possible that patients from these groups are less likely to be offered participation in studies with higher appeal or return on investment, due to systemic biases, disparities in recruitment practices, and/or lack of access. In this manuscript, we propose a systematic framework for evaluating attributes of interventional oncology clinical trials, with an emphasis on the study's purpose, experimental design, and investigational agent. This framework aims to pinpoint characteristics that may enhance trials' appeal or return on investment to participants and could lay a foundation for future research. This will allow investigators to assess the return on investment of appeal of studies offered across different patient populations.
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.