SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Characterization changes and research waste in randomized controlled trials of global gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatus hernia over the past 20 years.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. 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.
- Research waste of randomized controlled trials related to deep brain stimulation: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe results of many large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have transformed clinical practice in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and esophageal hiatal hernia (HH). However, research waste (i.e., unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations) remains a major challenge to evidence-based medicine.
methodA cross-sectional analysis was conducted to comprehensively review and evaluate RCTs related to GERD and esophageal HH, registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database between 2003 and 2023. A sample of eligible RCTs was identified by excluding early-stage trials, pediatric studies, and duplicate studies. Publication status was tracked using PubMed and Scopus databases, reporting adequacy was assessed according to the CONSORT guidelines, and design flaws were checked with the help of Cochrane tools. Shortcomings of RCT studies in different regions and intervention types were identified by quantifying RCT conduct, recruitment, reporting adequacy, risk of bias, and guideline citations.
resultsFrom 2003 to 2023, a total of 182 RCTs were included in the analysis, of which 69.8% (127 trials) were drug-related, and 71.4% of the principal investigators were located in North America and Asia (65 trials [35.7%] in both). Among them, the country with the most RCTs is the United States. RCTs in Asia were under-conducted in "procedure" and "other" types and fewer RCTs were conducted in Europe in "drug" type. RCTs in Oceania and South America were relatively under-conducted in the device and "other." The study revealed that more than 86.7% of RCTs were characterized by at least one type of research waste. Research waste was associated with the size of the RCT, blinded design, and regional healthcare access and quality index.
conclusionsThis study describes for the first time the characteristics of RCTs for GERD and esophageal HH over the past 20 years and the conduct of various types of RCTs at the continental level. It identifies the burden of research waste and shortcomings in the conduct of RCT programs on each continent, which may provide evidence for the development of rational RCTs and the reduction of waste in the future.
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.