ArticleTrials2009
Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey.
Article in Trials, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- "Knee osteoarthritis and current research for evidence-are we on the right way?"International orthopaedics · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Pooled it
- Inadequate description of educational interventions in ongoing randomized controlled trials.Trials · 2012Pooled it
- Trial
- Development and evaluation of objective trial performance metrics for multisite clinical studies: Experience from the AlcHep Network.Contemporary clinical trials · 2024Article
- Results publications are inadequately linked to trial registrations: An automated pipeline and evaluation of German university medical centers.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Article
- Inadequate reporting quality of registered genome editing trials: an observational study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Observational
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic Declaration on New Oncology Trial Commencements: An Interrupted Time Series with Segmented Regression Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one.PloS one · 2021Article
- Obstacles to the reuse of study metadata in ClinicalTrials.gov.Scientific data · 2020Article
- Article
- Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov.Trials · 2019Article
- Article
- Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Practitioners' perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- OpenTrials: towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials.Trials · 2016Article
- From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials.Trials · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set.
methodsA retrospective evaluation of 21 online clinical trial registries (international, national, specialty, pharmaceutical industry and local) from April 2005 to February 2007 and a cross-sectional evaluation of a stratified random sample of 610 trial records from the 21 registries.
resultsAmong 11 registries that provided guidelines for registration, the median compliance with the WHO criteria were 14 out of 20 items (range 6 to 20). In the period April 2005-February 2007, six registries increased their compliance by six data items, on average. None of the local registry websites published guidelines on the trial data items required for registration. Slightly more than half (330/610; 54.1%, 95% CI 50.1% - 58.1%) of trial records completed the contact details criteria while 29.7% (181/610, 95% CI 26.1% - 33.5%) completed the key clinical and methodological data fields.
conclusionWhile the launch of the WHO minimum data set seemed to positively influence registries with better standardisation of approaches, individual registry entries are largely incomplete. Initiatives to ensure quality assurance of registries and trial data should be encouraged. Peer reviewers and editors should scrutinise clinical trial registration records to ensure consistency with WHO's core content requirements when considering trial-related publications.
Indexed as
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.