ArticleBMC research notes2025
Open challenges for the automatic synthesis of clinical trials.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress of Diabetes-related Glaucoma: Mechanisms, Impacts and Management Strategies.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- From manual entry to machine precision: challenges and evolution of metadata schema development in collaborative research centers.BMC research notes · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveAn important criterion for selecting clinical trials to be compared in systematic reviews and meta-analyses is that they measure the same outcomes. However, this represents a challenge as there is a wide variety of outcomes, and it is difficult to standardize them for comparing clinical trials containing them. To address this challenge, we utilized our annotated dataset, which includes 211 abstracts of clinical trials related to glaucoma and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We then developed a tool that provides an overview of the annotated clinical trial information and enables users to group them by outcomes.
resultsUsing our visualization tool, we formed groups of outcomes and their respective clinical trials. We were able to determine the most common outcomes in clinical trials for these diseases. As a case study on diabetes, we compared our outcomes with those consented by diabetes stakeholders and found that many of the grouped outcomes are aligned with the consented ones. This demonstrates that tools such as the one presented can help standardize clinical outcomes, which in turn help in the synthesis of clinical trials. Finally, we also offer some recommendations that could help in the automation of clinical trials based on outcome standardization.
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.