ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2022
Quality assessment and its influencing factors of lung cancer clinical research registration: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Supporting study registration to reduce research waste.Nature ecology & evolution · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A better understanding of the current features of lung cancer clinical research registration is important for improving registration quality and standardizing the registration. This study aimed to assess the registration quality of lung cancer studies on ClinicalTrials.gov and analyze the influencing factors. Methods: Lung cancer clinical researches registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched on 7 July 2021. The characteristics of trials that registered up to 7 July 2021 were assessed. The quality of completed and terminated lung cancer studies from 1 July 2007 to 7 July 2020 was assessed using a modified version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.3.1). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was also used to analyze the factors influencing study registration quality. An above-average registration quality score represented a high registration quality. Results: A total of 6,448 clinical studies on lung cancer were used to summarise the registration characteristics. Most interventional studies were randomized (41.88%), single group (48.07%), and open-label (82.86%) studies, while most observational studies were cohort studies (59.08%). In total, 2,171 completed and terminated studies were assessed, with an average quality score (out of 54) of 36.76±5.69. None of the assessed studies had a 100% modified TRDS reporting rate, and missing summary results were the main factor affecting the quality scores. Multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that prospective registrations [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.79-2.65], multi-center studies (aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.39-2.16), government-sponsored studies (aOR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.48-6.42), and published studies (aOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.15-1.78) were more likely to be high quality research. Conclusions: To improve the quality of registration, awareness of prospective registration should be further improved and government investment should be increased. At the same time, more efficient and extensive data sharing after completion of the studies should be actively promoted.
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.