Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22550198›Full record

ArticleJAMA2012

Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010.

Robert M Califf, Deborah A Zarin, Judith M Kramer, Rachel E Sherman, Laura H Aberle, Asba Tasneem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
231citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

231 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Focused ultrasound for brain metastases.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Robert M CaliffDuke Translational Medicine Institute, 200 Trent Dr, 1117 Davison Bldg, Durham, NC 27710, USA. robert.califf@duke.edu
Deborah A Zarin
Judith M Kramer
Rachel E Sherman
Laura H Aberle
Asba Tasneem

Funding

Clinical Trials Transformation InitiativeU19FD003800 · FDA · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CALIFF, ROBERT · 2009 to 2013
$8.5M
ClinicalTrial Registration and Results ReportingZIALM008926 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI ZARIN, DEBORAH · 2009 to 2014
$4.3M
FDA HHS U19FD003800Intramural NIH HHS Z99 LM999999
6 · The paper itself

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

Databases, FactualCardiovascular DiseasesClinical Trials as TopicDrug IndustryHumansMental DisordersNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesResearch DesignResearch Support as TopicSample SizeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22550198
PMCPMC13431740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.