Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25760355›Full record

ArticleThe New England journal of medicine2015

Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Monique L Anderson, Karen Chiswell, Eric D Peterson, Asba Tasneem, James Topping, Robert M Califf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The New England journal of medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

163 citing papers in PubMed, 7 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. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

103 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.

Monique L AndersonFrom the Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology (M.L.A., E.D.P., R.M.C.), the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center (M.L.A., K.C., E.D.P., A.T., J.T.), and the Duke Translational Medicine Institute (R.M.C.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Karen Chiswell
Eric D Peterson
Asba Tasneem
James Topping
Robert M Califf

Funding

Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory SupplementU54AT007748 · NCCIH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI CURTIS, LESLEY H, HERNANDEZ, ADRIAN · 2012 to 2017
$15.1M
NCCIH NIH HHS 1U54AT007748-01NCCIH NIH HHS 3U54AT007748-02S1NCCIH NIH HHS U54 AT007748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) mandates timely reporting of results of applicable clinical trials to ClinicalTrials.gov. We characterized the proportion of applicable clinical trials with publicly available results and determined independent factors associated with the reporting of results.

methodsUsing an algorithm based on input from the National Library of Medicine, we identified trials that were likely to be subject to FDAAA provisions (highly likely applicable clinical trials, or HLACTs) from 2008 through 2013. We determined the proportion of HLACTs that reported results within the 12-month interval mandated by the FDAAA or at any time during the 5-year study period. We used regression models to examine characteristics associated with reporting at 12 months and throughout the 5-year study period.

resultsFrom all the trials at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 13,327 HLACTs that were terminated or completed from January 1, 2008, through August 31, 2012. Of these trials, 77.4% were classified as drug trials. A total of 36.9% of the trials were phase 2 studies, and 23.4% were phase 3 studies; 65.6% were funded by industry. Only 13.4% of trials reported summary results within 12 months after trial completion, whereas 38.3% reported results at any time up to September 27, 2013. Timely reporting was independently associated with factors such as FDA oversight, a later trial phase, and industry funding. A sample review suggested that 45% of industry-funded trials were not required to report results, as compared with 6% of trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 9% of trials that were funded by other government or academic institutions.

conclusionsDespite ethical and legal obligations to disclose findings promptly, most HLACTs did not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov in a timely fashion during the study period. Industry-funded trials adhered to legal obligations more often than did trials funded by the NIH or other government or academic institutions. (Funded by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and the NIH.).

Indexed as

Databases, FactualRegistriesAlgorithmsClinical Trials as TopicDisclosureDrug IndustryGovernment RegulationHumansMandatory ProgramsNational Library of Medicine (U.S.)Proportional Hazards ModelsResearch Support as TopicUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID25760355
PMCPMC4508873

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.