The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model
Viechtbauer, W. (2005) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986030003261 · Cited by 1,699 · cited 1×
“Given its advantageous properties (both efficient and approximately unbiased), we used the restricted maximum-likelihood estimator (35,36).”
Method
Cited by
Digital twins for health: a scoping review
Katsoulakis, E., Wang, Q., Wu, H., Shahriyari, L., Fletcher, R., Liu, J., Achenie, L., Liu, H., Jackson, P., Xiao, Y., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01073-0 · Cited by 760
Inan, O. T., Tenaerts, P., Prindiville, S. A., Reynolds, H. R., Dizon, D. S., Cooper-Arnold, K., Turakhia, M., Pletcher, M. J., Preston, K. L., Krumholz, H. M., et al. (2020) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0302-y · Cited by 329
Digitally Enabled, Patient‐Centric Clinical Trials: Shifting the Drug Development Paradigm
Dockendorf, M. F., Hansen, B. J., Bateman, K. P., Moyer, M., Shah, J. K., & Shipley, L. A. (2021) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/cts.12910 · Cited by 67
Gupta, S., Basu, A., Nievas, M., Thomas, J., Wolfrath, N., Ramamurthi, A., Taylor, B., Kothari, A. N., Schwind, R., Miller, T. M., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01274-7 · Cited by 52
de Paula, B. H. R., Araújo, I., Bandeira, L., Barreto, N. M. P. B., & Doherty, G. J. (2020) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30226-6 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Unger, J. M., Vaidya, R., Hershman, D. L., Minasian, L. M., & Fleury, M. E.
- Venue
- JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-02-19
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 245-255
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2915663023
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djy221
- The paper
- Unger, J. M., Vaidya, R., Hershman, D. L., Minasian, L. M., & Fleury, M. E. (2019). Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy221
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.