Ahmed Toure1, Paola Ghione2, Samantha Phillips3, Kelsey Klute4, John P Leonard1, Peter Martin5. 1. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 2. Molecular Biotechnologies and Health Sciences, Torino University, Torino, Italy. 3. Weill Cornell/Rockefeller University/Sloan Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program, New York, NY. 4. Division of Oncology and Hematology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. 5. Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. Electronic address: pem9109@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov is used by clinicians and patients to identify clinical trials. We assessed the ease with which users could identify relevant trials related to lymphoma using the short and official titles. We hypothesized that lymphoma titles frequently lack important information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed 2 searches on ClinicalTrials.gov. The first search was performed before June 2017, when ClinicalTrials.gov underwent updates to improve usability. The second was performed after 2017. We assessed whether the short and official titles of each trial provided information on the study phase, eligible disease status, lymphoma histologic subtype, study intervention, primary objective, and the presence of randomization and placebo control. RESULTS: Of the pre-overhaul lymphoma trials, the official versus short titles included information regarding study intervention (99% vs. 96%), study phase (82% vs. 14%), lymphoma histologic subtype (78% vs. 72%), disease status (46% vs. 35%), randomization (13% vs. 2%), presence of placebo (6% vs. 2%), and primary objective (38% vs. 26%). Of the post-overhaul trials, the official versus short titles included information regarding study intervention (97% vs. 96%), lymphoma histologic subtype (83% vs. 78%), study phase (78% vs. 8%), disease status (64% vs. 50%), primary objective (38% vs. 23%), presence of placebo (11% vs. 0%), and randomization (18% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: The official titles were more informative than were the short titles on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, the short and official titles both often lacked the basic information needed to understand a clinical trial. This has persisted despite updates to the platform. These results highlight the need for standardization of the format and content included in study titles.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov is used by clinicians and patients to identify clinical trials. We assessed the ease with which users could identify relevant trials related to lymphoma using the short and official titles. We hypothesized that lymphoma titles frequently lack important information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed 2 searches on ClinicalTrials.gov. The first search was performed before June 2017, when ClinicalTrials.gov underwent updates to improve usability. The second was performed after 2017. We assessed whether the short and official titles of each trial provided information on the study phase, eligible disease status, lymphoma histologic subtype, study intervention, primary objective, and the presence of randomization and placebo control. RESULTS: Of the pre-overhaul lymphoma trials, the official versus short titles included information regarding study intervention (99% vs. 96%), study phase (82% vs. 14%), lymphoma histologic subtype (78% vs. 72%), disease status (46% vs. 35%), randomization (13% vs. 2%), presence of placebo (6% vs. 2%), and primary objective (38% vs. 26%). Of the post-overhaul trials, the official versus short titles included information regarding study intervention (97% vs. 96%), lymphoma histologic subtype (83% vs. 78%), study phase (78% vs. 8%), disease status (64% vs. 50%), primary objective (38% vs. 23%), presence of placebo (11% vs. 0%), and randomization (18% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: The official titles were more informative than were the short titles on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, the short and official titles both often lacked the basic information needed to understand a clinical trial. This has persisted despite updates to the platform. These results highlight the need for standardization of the format and content included in study titles.