ArticleJAMA2012
Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010.
Article in JAMA, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 231 papers, 14 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
231 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Increasing Trends of Minimal Residual Disease Measurement in Trials Focusing on Multiple Myeloma Treatment: A Systematic Analysis of Clinical Research Design From 2014 to 2025.European journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Characterisation of digital therapeutic clinical trials: a systematic review with natural language processing.The Lancet. Digital health · 2024Pooled it
- The landscape of recurrent spontaneous abortion registered on clinical trials.gov.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical translation of stem cell therapy for spinal cord injury still premature: results from a single-arm meta-analysis based on 62 clinical trials.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Sample size, sample size planning, and the impact of study context: systematic review and recommendations by the example of psychological depression treatment.Psychological medicine · 2021Pooled it
- The Current Landscape of Clinical Studies Focusing on Thyroid Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis of Study Characteristics and Their Publication Status.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Pooled it
- Diagnostic Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: Barriers and Innovations.Clinical breast cancer · 2019Pooled it
- The changing landscape of phase II/III metastatic sarcoma clinical trials-analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov.BMC cancer · 2018Pooled it
- A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Screening Accuracy for Aspiration Using Bedside Water Swallow Tests: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Chest · 2016Pooled it
- Comparison of registered and published outcomes in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.BMC medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Sample sizes in dosage investigational clinical trials: a systematic evaluation.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015Pooled it
- Nutritional supplementation to reduce child aggression: a randomized, stratified, single-blind, factorial trial.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2016Trial
- Reduction in behavior problems with omega-3 supplementation in children aged 8-16 years: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified, parallel-group trial.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2015Trial
- Focused ultrasound for brain metastases.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026Review
- Racial and ethnic diversity in clinical studies reported to ClinicalTrials.gov, 2009-2024.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Characteristics and developmental trajectory of clinical trials focused on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for cancer treatment.Cancer gene therapy · 2026Review
- Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.BMJ open · 2026Observational
171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextRecent reports highlight gaps between guidelines-based treatment recommendations and evidence from clinical trials that supports those recommendations. Strengthened reporting requirements for studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov enable a comprehensive evaluation of the national trials portfolio.
objectiveTo examine fundamental characteristics of interventional clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
methodsA data set comprising 96,346 clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov was downloaded on September 27, 2010, and entered into a relational database to analyze aggregate data. Interventional trials were identified and analyses were focused on 3 clinical specialties-cardiovascular, mental health, and oncology-that together encompass the largest number of disability-adjusted life-years lost in the United States.
main outcome measuresCharacteristics of registered clinical trials as reported data elements in the trial registry; how those characteristics have changed over time; differences in characteristics as a function of clinical specialty; and factors associated with use of randomization, blinding, and data monitoring committees (DMCs).
resultsThe number of registered interventional clinical trials increased from 28,881 (October 2004-September 2007) to 40,970 (October 2007-September 2010), and the number of missing data elements has generally declined. Most interventional trials registered between 2007 and 2010 were small, with 62% enrolling 100 or fewer participants. Many clinical trials were single-center (66%; 24,788/37,520) and funded by organizations other than industry or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (47%; 17,592/37,520). Heterogeneity in the reported methods by clinical specialty; sponsor type; and the reported use of DMCs, randomization, and blinding was evident. For example, reported use of DMCs was less common in industry-sponsored vs NIH-sponsored trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14), earlier-phase vs phase 3 trials (adjusted OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91), and mental health trials vs those in the other 2 specialties. In similar comparisons, randomization and blinding were less frequently reported in earlier-phase, oncology, and device trials.
conclusionClinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov are dominated by small trials and contain significant heterogeneity in methodological approaches, including reported use of randomization, blinding, and DMCs.
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.