ClinicalTrials.gov as a Data Source for Semi-Automated Point-Of-Care Trial Eligibility Screening

Background Implementing semi-automated processes to efficiently match patients to clinical trials at the point of care requires both detailed patient data and authoritative information about open studies. Objective To evaluate the utility of the ClinicalTrials.gov registry as a data source for semi-automated trial eligibility screening. Methods Eligibility criteria and metadata for 437 trials open for recruitment in four different clinical domains were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were evaluated for up to date recruitment status and eligibility criteria were evaluated for obstacles to automated interpretation. Finally, phone or email outreach to coordinators at a subset of the trials was made to assess the accuracy of contact details and recruitment status. Results 24% (104 of 437) of trials declaring on open recruitment status list a study completion date in the past, indicating out of date records. Substantial barriers to automated eligibility interpretation in free form text are present in 81% to up to 94% of all trials. We were unable to contact coordinators at 31% (45 of 146) of the trials in the subset, either by phone or by email. Only 53% (74 of 146) would confirm that they were still recruiting patients. Conclusion Because ClinicalTrials.gov has entries on most US and many international trials, the registry could be repurposed as a comprehensive trial matching data source. Semi-automated point of care recruitment would be facilitated by matching the registry's eligibility criteria against clinical data from electronic health records. But the current entries fall short. Ultimately, improved techniques in natural language processing will facilitate semi-automated complex matching. As immediate next steps, we recommend augmenting ClinicalTrials.gov data entry forms to capture key eligibility criteria in a simple, structured format.

[1]  S. Tu,et al.  Analysis of Eligibility Criteria Complexity in Clinical Trials , 2010, Summit on translational bioinformatics.

[2]  I. Kohane,et al.  Escaping the EHR trap--the future of health IT. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Tingting Mu,et al.  ASCOT: a text mining-based web-service for efficient search and assisted creation of clinical trials , 2012, BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.

[4]  James J. Cimino,et al.  Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to Track Results of Interventional Human Clinical Trials , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  Formal representation of eligibility criteria: A literature review , 2010, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[6]  Amita Sharma,et al.  Patient Recruitment into a Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial 
for Kidney Disease: Report of the Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis Clinical Trial (FSGS CT) , 2013, Clinical and translational science.

[7]  Chunhua Weng,et al.  EliXR-TIME: A Temporal Knowledge Representation for Clinical Research Eligibility Criteria , 2012, AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science.

[8]  J. DeShazo,et al.  Effort required in eligibility screening for clinical trials. , 2012, Journal of oncology practice.

[9]  Nancy L. Atkinson,et al.  Using the Internet to search for cancer clinical trials: a comparative audit of clinical trial search tools. , 2008, Contemporary clinical trials.

[10]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[11]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  A human-computer collaborative approach to identifying common data elements in clinical trial eligibility criteria , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[12]  Paul Tornetta,et al.  The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  Alisa Opar New tools automatically match patients with clinical trials , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[14]  D. Zarin,et al.  Trust but Verify: Trial Registration and Determining Fidelity to the Protocol , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Xiaoying Wu,et al.  EliXR: an approach to eligibility criteria extraction and representation , 2011, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[16]  J Michael McCoy,et al.  The SMART Platform: early experience enabling substitutable applications for electronic health records , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[17]  N Colabianchi,et al.  Factors that predict the referral of breast cancer patients onto clinical trials by their surgeons and medical oncologists. , 2000, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  M. Boland,et al.  Feasibility of Feature-based Indexing, Clustering, and Search of Clinical Trials , 2013, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[19]  Riccardo Miotto,et al.  Unsupervised mining of frequent tags for clinical eligibility text indexing , 2013, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[20]  J. PérezMartín,et al.  [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors]. , 2008, Revista alergia Mexico.

[21]  Steven Bethard,et al.  Discovering Narrative Containers in Clinical Text , 2013 .

[22]  R. Frye,et al.  Strategies for recruitment and retention of participants in clinical trials. , 2011, JAMA.

[23]  Mor Peleg,et al.  A practical method for transforming free-text eligibility criteria into computable criteria , 2011, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[24]  N. Hawkes UK must improve its recruitment rate in clinical trials, report says , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  Anna Rumshisky,et al.  Evaluating temporal relations in clinical text: 2012 i2b2 Challenge , 2013, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[26]  G. Felker,et al.  Patient- and trial-specific barriers to participation in cardiovascular randomized clinical trials. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.