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

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Clinical trial acronyms
• medical ethics
• informed consent

Disclosure statement

GM reported receiving personal fees from MSD and Roche; grants and personal fees from BMS and Novartis; personal fees and stock options from 4C Biomed; and stock options from Nucleai, Biond Biologics, and Ella Therapeutics outside the submitted work. TM reported receiving personal fees from TyrNovo outside the submitted work. DB declare no competing interest.

Authors contribution

TM and DB conceived the study. TM designed the study. TM and DB acquired the data. TM analyzed and wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All the authors interpreted the data. All the authors were involved in preparing this manuscript and contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript. GM supervised the study. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.

Additional information

Funding

GM is supported by the Samulei Foundation Grant for Integrative Immuno-Oncology. TM was supported by the Foulkes Foundation fellowship for MD/PhD students. The funding sources had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.