ArticleScientific reports2025
Research waste in randomized clinical trials of degenerative spinal diseases: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Characteristics and research waste of immunotherapy randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence-based medicine continues to face the challenge of research waste (i.e., nonpublication, reporting limitations, high risk of bias) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of degenerative spinal diseases (DSDs). A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs registered before July 27, 2024 using the keywords DSDs and related terms. The major outcome was the percentage of trials exhibiting the characteristics of research waste on DSD RCTs. A total of 335 DSD RCTs were eligible, with a lower percentage of multicenter trials outside North America than in North America (33 [14.7%] vs. 53 [47.7%]; P < .001). A total of 224 trials were included. Of the 176 (78.6%) published RCTs, 126 (71.5%) had reporting limitations and 71 (40.3%) were at high risk of bias. RCTs with implementing blinding (single vs. none/open-label: OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.35, P < .001; double/more vs. none/open-label: 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, P = .003), non-industry funding (0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.42; P < .001), and multicenter (0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.56; P = .002) have lower odds of research waste. In conclusion, we provide the first description of DSD RCTs over the past 30 years and find significant research waste that is out of proportion to the magnitude of the disease burden.
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.