ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing compliance to reporting mandates in glioblastoma-related clinical trials.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionAccurate and timely reporting of scientific knowledge is crucial to clinical research ethics. ClinicalTrials.gov allows researchers to register trials and report results to the public and scientific community. Despite FDA reporting mandates, compliance with the required 12-month window remains low. Given glioblastoma's (GBM) aggressive nature, timely reporting is especially important for advancing research and benefiting patients. This study aimed to assess GBM trial reporting rates on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify factors related to non-compliance.
methodsWe utilized a previously published algorithm to identify studies on ClinicalTrials.gov likely mandated to report. We obtained the titles, status, results, phases, funding type, intervention type, study design and type, location, and all available trial dates. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated reporting times, and Cox regression models identified factors associated with reporting within five years.
resultsWe identified 255 GBM-related trials likely mandated to report. 13% reported results within the 12-month deadline, while 82.7% reported within five years. Factors significantly associated with lower reporting rates at five years were biological interventions (HR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00, p = 0.049), Phase 1-2 trials (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.46-0.91, p = 0.014), and studies with quadruple masking (HR 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04-0.93, p = 0.040).
conclusionFor GBM-related trials, noncompliance with reporting mandates remains a major issue. Reporting within 12 months was only 13%. No factors influenced reporting by 12 months, but multiple factors influenced five-year reporting. Further research is needed to understand these associations and create targeted incentives to increase transparency through timely reporting of GBM-related trials.
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.