ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2015
The evolution in registration of clinical trials: a chronicle of the historical calls and current initiatives promoting transparency.
Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional clinical trials registered per million population per country worldwide.Trials · 2025Article
- Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022.JAMA network open · 2023Review
- Review
- Transparency in ovarian cancer clinical trial results: ClinicalTrials.gov versus PubMed, Embase and Google scholar.Journal of ovarian research · 2018Article
- Factors associated with reporting results for pulmonary clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2018Article
- Article
- Registration of clinical trials in anesthesiology: promoting transparency in clinical research.Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeQuality of care is strongly influenced by evidence-based medicine, a large part of which is based on results obtained from clinical trials. If trials are conducted in secret, patient safety is at risk. Several mandates-legal, editorial, financial, and ethical-have tried to influence the disclosure of clinical trials, first by encouraging registration in publicly accessible registers and, second, by calling for the publication of results. Not all these initiatives have reached high rates of compliance, but the succession of national and international events over a few years gave an important boost to information disclosure. This article provides a chronicle of the succession of the events, from the historical calls to the recent EMA policy and WHO statement, and public consultations requested by the NIH, and the HHS, which will inevitably change the international panorama. The path of these new policies is moving towards more supervised clinical research. Individual scientific institutions can also contribute, at the local level, to such an ethical endeavor as is improving research transparency, by disclosing information on the trials coordinated by their own researchers.
resultsThe way is long and complex, but, if everyone contributes there could be a prompt, worldwide diffusion of the findings of clinical trials, and therefore a more possible evidenced-based medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26242226What 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.