ArticlePloS one2014
The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers, 8 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
75 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nutritional interventions in treating menopause-related sleep disturbances: a systematic review.Nutrition reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Botulinum Toxin Injections for Psychiatric Disorders: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Trial Landscape.Toxins · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Current status ofIndian journal of pharmacologyPooled it
- Development of a clinical trial knowledge management application for community oncology.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- A snapshot of selected neglected tropical disease research using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform database, 1999-2023.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Human-in-the-Loop Data Curation Training Program to Support a Digital Clinical Trial Platform: Descriptive Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Research waste in total knee arthroplasty studies: an observational study on registered trials.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Clinical trial landscape and translational priorities for adoptive T-cell and NK-cell therapies in gynecologic malignancies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Interventional clinical trials registered per million population per country worldwide.Trials · 2025Article
- Patterns of Oncological Clinical Trials in African Countries: A Scoping Review.Journal of cancer prevention · 2025Review
- Article
- Exploration of Using an Open-Source Large Language Model for Analyzing Trial Information: A Case Study of Clinical Trials With Decentralized Elements.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Trends in Israeli clinical trials registration "MyTrial".Israel journal of health policy research · 2024Article
15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
Abstract
introductionThe benefits of clinical trials registration include improved transparency on clinical trials for healthcare workers and patients, increased accountability of trialists, the potential to address publication bias and selective reporting, and possibilities for research collaboration and prioritization. However, poor quality of information in registered records of trials has been found to undermine these benefits in the past. Trialists' increasing experience with trial registration and recent developments in registration systems may have positively affected data quality. This study was conducted to investigate whether the quality of registration has improved.
methodsWe repeated a study from 2009, using the same methods and the same research team. A random sample of 400 records of clinical trials that were registered between 01/01/2012 and 01/01/2013 was taken from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and assessed for the quality of information on 1) contact details, 2) interventions and 3) primary outcomes. Results were compared to the equivalent assessments from our previous study.
resultsThere was a small and not statistically significant increase from 81.0% to 85.5% in the percentage of records that provided a name of a contact person. There was a significant increase from 68.7% to 74.9% in the number of records that provided either an email address or a telephone number. There was a significant increase from 44.2% to 51.9% in the number of intervention arms that were complete in registering intervention specifics. There was a significant increase from 38.2% to 57.6% in the number of primary outcomes that were specific measures with a meaningful timeframe. Approximately half of all trials continued to be retrospectively registered. DISCUSSION: There have been small but significant improvements in the quality of registration since 2009. Important problems with quality remain and continue to constitute an impediment to the meaningful utilization of registered trial information.
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.