ArticleSystematic reviews2016
Previously unidentified duplicate registrations of clinical trials: an exploratory analysis of registry data worldwide.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Identifying trials run in India that are registered in other clinical trial registries: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Data from the Indian drug regulator and from Clinical Trials Registry-India does not always match.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP): data integrity and the trends in clinical trials, diseases, and drugs.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Update on the clinical trial landscape: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov registration data, 2000-2020.Trials · 2022Article
- Promotion of data sharing needs more than an emergency: An analysis of trends across clinical trials registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one.PloS one · 2021Article
- Assessment of Trends in the Design, Accrual, and Completion of Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov by Sponsor Type, 2000-2019.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Article
- Transparency and accuracy in funding investigator-initiated clinical trials: a systematic search in clinical trials databases.BMJ open · 2019Article
- How to avoid common problems when using ClinicalTrials.gov in research: 10 issues to consider.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Article
- Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Review
- Update on Trial Registration 11 Years after the ICMJE Policy Was Established.The New England journal of medicine · 2017Article
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
backgroundTrial registries were established to combat publication bias by creating a comprehensive and unambiguous record of initiated clinical trials. However, the proliferation of registries and registration policies means that a single trial may be registered multiple times (i.e., "duplicates"). Because unidentified duplicates threaten our ability to identify trials unambiguously, we investigate to what degree duplicates have been identified across registries globally.
methodsWe retrieved all records from the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and made a list of all records identified as duplicates by the ICTRP. To investigate how to discriminate duplicates from non-duplicates, we applied text-based similarity scoring to various registration fields of both ICTRP-identified duplicates and arbitrary pairs of trials. We then used the best similarity measure to identify the most similar pairs of records and manually assessed a random sample of pairs not identified as duplicates by the ICTRP to estimate the number of previously unidentified (or "hidden") duplicates.
resultsTwo hundred eighty-five thousand unique records, or 271 thousand unique trials after accounting for known duplicates, were retrieved from the ICTRP portal in April 2015. We found that the title field best discriminated duplicates from non-duplicates. Out of 41 billion total pair-wise comparisons, we identified the 474,000 pairs of titles with the highest similarity scores (>0.5). After manually assessing a random sample of 434 pairs, we estimated that 45 % of all duplicate registrations currently go undetected and remain to be identified and confirmed as duplicates. Thus, the actual number of unique trials represented in this dataset is estimated to be approximately 258,000 (5 % less).
conclusionsThe ICTRP portal does not currently enable the unambiguous identification of trials across registries. Further research is needed to identify and verify the duplicates that currently go undetected. Sponsors, registries, and the ICTRP should consider actions to ensure duplicate registrations are easily identifiable.
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.