ArticleSystematic reviews2014
Clinical trials registries are under-utilized in the conduct of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 6 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of searching clinical trials registers in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions: Reanalysis of meta-analyses.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- Baseline results of a living systematic review for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations.Wellcome open research · 2020Pooled it
- A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled it
- Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature: a systematic review of the top 20 journals.BMC research notes · 2016Pooled it
- Supplementary search methods versus bibliographic database searching to identify studies and study reports.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- A web-based tool for automatically linking clinical trials to their publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Obstacles to the reuse of study metadata in ClinicalTrials.gov.Scientific data · 2020Article
- From the Roman Empire to the New Millennium. Data access and sharing from healthy ageing cohorts.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Article
- Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Legal regulations, ethical guidelines and recent policies to increase transparency of clinical trials.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Review
- Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005-2016.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2018Article
- Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
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
backgroundPublication bias is a major threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Searches of clinical trials registries can help to identify unpublished trials, though little is known about how often these resources are utilized. We assessed the usage and results of registry searches reported in systematic reviews published in major general medical journals.
methodsThis cross-sectional analysis includes data from systematic reviews assessing medical interventions which were published in one of six major general medical journals between July 2012 and June 2013. Two authors independently examined each published systematic review and all available supplementary materials to determine whether at least one clinical trials registry was searched.
resultsOf the 117 included systematic reviews, 41 (35%) reported searching a trials registry. Of the 29 reviews which also provided detailed registry search results, 15 (52%) identified at least one completed trial and 18 (62%) identified at least one ongoing trial.
conclusionsClinical trials registry searches are not routinely included in systematic reviews published in major medical journals. Routine examination of registry databases may allow a more accurate characterization of publication and outcome reporting biases and improve the validity of estimated effects of medical treatments.
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.