ArticlePloS one2010
Result publication of Chinese trials in World Health Organization primary registries.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Improving the transparency of animal experiments: valuable lessons learned from a systematic analysis of registration protocols.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.PloS one · 2014Article
- Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to track results of interventional human clinical trials.PloS one · 2013Article
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
backgroundResult publication is the key step to improve the transparency of clinical trials.
objectiveTo investigate the result publication rate of Chinese trials registered in World Health Organization (WHO) primary registries.
methodWe searched 11 WHO primary registries for Chinese trials records. The progress of each trial was analyzed. We searched for the full texts of result publications cited in the registration records. For completed trials without citations, we searched PubMed, Embase, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (Chinese), China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals Database for result publications. The search was conducted on July 14, 2009. We also called the investigators of completed trials to ask about results publication.
resultsWe identified 1294 Chinese trials records (428 in ChiCTR,743 in clinicaltrials.gov,55 in ISRCTN, 21 in ACTRN). A total of 443 trials had been completed. The publication rate of the Chinese trials in WHO primary registries is 35.2% (156/443).The publication rate of Chinese trials in clinicaltrials.gov, ChiCTR, ISRCTN, and ACRTN was 36.5% (53/145), 36.3% (89/245), 26.0% (9/44), and 55.6% (5/9), respectively. The publication rate of trials sponsored by industry (23.8%) was lower than that of sponsored by central and local government (31.7%), hospital (35.1%), and universities (40.7%). The publication rate for randomized trials was higher than that of cohort study and case-control study (33.2% versus 16.7%, 22.2%). The publication rate for interventional studies and observational studies was similar (33.4% versus 33.3%).
conclusionThe publication rate of the registered Chinese trials was low, with no significant difference between ChiCTR and clinicaltrials.gov. An effective mechanism is needed to promote publication of results for registered trials in China.
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.