ArticleTrials2007
Do trialists endorse clinical trial registration? Survey of a Pubmed sample.
Article in Trials, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Tinnitus Trials: Comparison of Trial Registries With Corresponding Publications.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Osteoporosis-Related Randomized Clinical Trials With Middle-Aged and Older Adults Registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors".Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2016Review
- When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration.Trials · 2016Article
- Article
- "Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Children's presence in research. A review of online registers.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Review
- The use of electronic data capture tools in clinical trials: Web-survey of 259 Canadian trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2009Article
- An audit of studies registered retrospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India: A one year analysis.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Practical and conceptual issues of clinical trial registration for Brazilian researchers.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite intense interest in trial registration, there is a wide gap between theoretical postulates on trial registration and its implementation worldwide.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate trialists views about current international guidelines on trial registration, including the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) policies and the Ottawa Statement, as well as their intention to register any future clinical trials they conduct.
methodsWe identified all 40,158 PUBMED-indexed clinical trials published from May 2005 to May 2006 using an advanced search strategy. From a random sample of 500 confirmed clinical trials, corresponding authors with e-mail contact addresses were surveyed.
resultsA total of 275 (60%) questionnaires from 45 countries were completed. 31% of the respondents had received only nonindustry funding during the past ten years, while 5% and 61% had received only industry or mixed funding respectively. Approximately two third of participants supported registration of all 20 WHO Data Set items, and endorsed the Ottawa Statement part 1 and part 2. Delayed public disclosure of some essential data in instances where they may be considered sensitive for competitive commercial reasons was supported by 30% of the participants, whereas immediate disclosure was supported by 53%. Only 21% of participants had registered all of their ongoing trials since 2005, while 47% stated that they would provide the 20 WHO Data Set items to a publicly accessible register for all their future clinical trials; a significantly higher proportion of participants who received only nonindustry funding (62%) was found among those who would always provide the 20 WHO items for future trials, compared to 42% of participants who received mixed or only industry funding. Among those who were undecided about endorsing registration. One third of participants expressed a lack of sufficient knowledge as the primary reason.
conclusionAlthough disagreement was apparent on certain issues, our findings illustrate that trial registration is gradually becoming part of the current research paradigm internationally. Our results also suggest that researchers require more knowledge to inform their decision to comply with the International standards at this early stage of voluntary trial registration.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.