Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40301986›Full record

SynthesisTrials2025

Clinical Study Reports-a systematic review with thematic synthesis: Part 1. History, contents and structure, definitions, and terminology.

J K Aronson, I J Onakpoya

Abstract readSystematic ReviewHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

J K AronsonCentre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK. jeffrey.aronson@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1139-655X
I J OnakpoyaDepartment for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Rewley House, 1 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2JA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2420-0811

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical study reports (CSRs) are standardized full reports of the protocols, results, and other pertinent details of clinical studies that are typically submitted by pharmaceutical companies to regulatory authorities, as part of the drug approval process. Their recommended contents and structure were described in 1995 in a document of the International Conference on Harmonisation, ICH E3, although companies can choose how to present the data. Until 2015, such reports were not readily available to the public, but since then some regulatory authorities have made them available, as have some pharmaceutical companies, albeit often in abbreviated or redacted versions. The apparent benefits of pharmacological interventions are not as impressive when they are calculated using data from clinical study reports compared with published trial reports, and more information emerges about harms the interventions can cause.

resultsOur methods are described in Part 2 of this systematic review with thematic synthesis, in which we have summarized the uses of CSRs, as described in 349 publications of various sorts, including analyses of clinical trials, data analyses, commentaries, and official documents. We have specifically concentrated on how CSRs affect assessments of benefits, harms, and the benefit-to-harm balance, and other factors that affect it. In Part 1, we discuss the history of the development of CSRs, their contents and structure, definitions of CSRs and qualifying terms, and relevant terminology (including the availability of CSRs, data sharing systems, and transparency and confidentiality).

conclusionsOur conclusions are listed in Part 2 of this review.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicResearch DesignResearch ReportTerminology as TopicHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansAvailabilityClinical study reportsContents and structureDefinitionsHistoryTerminologyTransparency and confidentiality

Identifiers

PMID40301986
PMCPMC12042613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.