Individualisation of radiochemotherapy (RTCT) for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

The common sense behind clinical trial names: An empirical study of trial acronyms

The use of acronyms to name clinical trials, some of which might be manipulative or even coercive, is increasingly popular yet controversial. We aimed to evaluate whether trial acronyms are associated with appealing linguistic cues born of marketing psychology using trade names of perfumes. The proportion of trials (730 clinical trials) titled with an acronym was 61%. Among acronym-named trials, 70% have matching trade names of perfumes, i.e., - alluring names. Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to use acronyms (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.15-2.26; p = 0.006) and alluring acronyms (OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.61-4.12; p < 0.001). During the period from 2000 to 2020, the proportion of alluring trials increased both for industry and academic funding, from 50% to 77% and from 0% to 57% , respectively. Also, trials with alluring acronyms were cited more often (relative rate of citation, 1.37; 95% CI 1.13-1.66; p = 0.001). The growing use of acronyms coincides with a noticeable increase in manipulative names. Through overt or subliminal enticement, inspirational acronyms that downplay the risks or raise expectations to patients with life-threatening illnesses, may exert undue influence. The observed relationship between manipulative acronyms and sponsorship by the pharmaceutical industry enhances this concern.