ArticleTrials2019
Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fighting for recovery on multiple fronts: The past, present, and future of clinical trials for spinal cord injury.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022Pooled it
- Incidence of Primary End Point Changes Among Active Cancer Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- From API to Action: A Multi-Model Comparison of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta LLMs for Clinical Trial Data Extraction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Retrieval-enhanced drafting of ClinicalTrials.gov data elements from clinical protocols.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Readability of Public-Facing Urologic Oncology Trial Summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.Urology practice · 2025Article
- Landscape analysis of oncology nutrition research among patients being treated for cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Disparities in patient enrollment of spinal oncology clinical trials.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient Enrollment to Industry-Sponsored Versus Federally-Sponsored Cancer Clinical Trials.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- Facilitation of Enrollment onto Cancer Clinical Trials Using a Novel Navigator-Assisted Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Linking Cancer Clinical Trials to their Result Publications.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024Article
- Data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2023Article
- Article
- Predicting Publication of Clinical Trials Using Structured and Unstructured Data: Model Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Characteristics of clinical trials related to hip fractures and factors associated with completion.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Article
- A web-based tool for automatically linking clinical trials to their publications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Article
- Discrepancies between FDA documents and ClinicalTrials.gov for Orphan Drug-related clinical trial data.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical trial registries have been established as a form of public accountability. Sponsors ought to register their trials promptly and accurately, but this is not always done. Some of the problems include non-registration of trials, registration of trials with incomplete information, and non-reporting of trial results on time. In this study we enumerate or quantify some quality issues with respect to Principal Investigator (PI) and Responsible Party data.
methodsWe analyzed interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Using certain selection criteria, we started with 112,013 records, and then applied further filters. The trial had to (a) start between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2014, (b) include a "drug" or "biological" in the "intervention" field, (c) be registered with an American authority, and (d) list a real person's name as investigator and also his or her role in the study.
resultsWe identified four categories of errors in the ClinicalTrials.gov records. First, some data were missing. The name of the investigator, or his or her role, was missing in 12% of 35,121 trials. In examining 71,359 pairs of names and roles, 17% of the "names" were found to be not those of real persons, but instead junk information. Second, there were variations in a large number of names. We identified 19 categories of variants. We determined that 13% of the names had variants that could not be resolved using a program. Third, some trials listed many PIs each, although only one such person holds overall responsibility for the trial and therefore not more than one person should be listed as PI. Fourth, in examining whether the PI's name was available as part of the Responsible Party tag, we found that in 1221 (3.5%) of 35,121 trials, the Responsible Party tag is absent.
conclusionsWe have outlined four categories of problems with data hosted by ClinicalTrials.gov and have quantified three of them. We also suggest how these errors could be prevented in future. It is important to carry out various kinds of audits of trial registries, in order to identify lacunae in the records, that they be addressed.
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.