ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Advancing randomized controlled trials of vascular anomalies: an analysis of trial waste.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. 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.
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
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
Abstract
A series of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have advanced the therapeutic approaches for vascular anomalies (VA). However, a notable obstacle in applying the findings of these trials to real-world patient care is trial waste (TW). To date, the extent of TW in RCTs for VA is not clear. In June 2024, we searched the ClinicalTrials database using the entity names defined by ISSVA classification as search terms. We documented the data available and then explored PubMed and Scopus for the publication status. Reporting adequacy was evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. Design limitations were analyzed based on bias risk and whether the article referenced a relevant systematic review. One hundred fifty-nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of RCTs focused on benign VA (81.1%) and utilized pharmacotherapy (79.9%). Over 90% of these trials were conducted in North America, Europe, and Asia as single-center studies (68.6%), with funding primarily from official institutions (83.7%). The analysis of TW excluded 61 RCTs completed after June 2020 that remained unpublished. Among the remaining 98 RCTs, 53 were published, 41 had adequate reporting, and 16 had design limitations. In total, 67 RCTs exhibited at least one characteristic of TW. The 31 RCTs without waste tended to enroll more participants (P = 0.014) and conduct studies across multiple centers (P < 0.001) and countries (P = 0.022). Multicenter participation (P = 0.028) emerged as an independent protective factor against TW.
conclusionWe delineated the features of 159 VA RCTs and revealed that 68.4% of them exhibited TW. The diverse traits of the different TW indicators identified could serve as valuable insights for conducting future VA RCTs more rationally and efficiently. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Currently, a number of RCTs have been conducted on vascular anomalies (VA). However, there has been no study analyzing the situation of trial waste in VA-related RCTs. WHAT IS NEW: • This study is the first to describe the characteristics of VA-related RCTs globally over the past 20 years and has identified a high burden of trial waste in this field. Multicenter participation was an independent protective factor against trial waste.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39316124What 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.