ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Clinical trials in small-cell lung cancer treatment: a cross-sectional analysis of trial discontinuation and non-publication.
Article in Discover oncology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePremature discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials constitute a waste of limited public resources and create ethical dilemmas for trial participants, clinicians, and the public. This study investigated the rates of discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials related to small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) treatment.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional review of ClinicalTrials.gov to screen clinical trials examining anticancer therapies for SCLC between 2006 and 2020. Discontinuation was determined by recruitment status and a comparison between expected and actual enrollment sizes. The publication status was determined through a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar.
resultsThe study included 154 clinical trials. Of these, 79 (51.3%) were prematurely discontinued, and 27 were discontinued for preventable reasons (i.e., poor recruitment, organizational/strategic reasons, and limited resources). Multicenter recruitment (OR 0.227, 95% CI 0.077-0.673, P = 0.007) and Asian principal investigators (OR 0.324, 95% CI 0.114-0.924, P = 0.035) were independently associated with a reduced probability of premature discontinuation. In contrast, industry-funded clinical trials were independently associated with a reduced probability of preventable discontinuation (OR 0.237, 95% CI 0.080-0.698, P = 0.009). To date, 43 of the 154 trials (27.9%) remained unpublished. When considering reasons for discontinuation, preventable discontinuation (OR 0.044, 95% CI 0.014-0.144, P < 0.001) and industry funding (OR 0.118, 95% CI 0.031-0.448, P = 0.002) were independently associated with a reduced probability of publication, whereas multicenter (OR 6.302, 95% CI 1.783-22.271, P = 0.004) and international recruitment (OR 5.358, 95% CI 1.467-19.566, P = 0.011) were independently associated with an increased probability of publication.
interpretationPremature discontinuation and non-publication are common in SCLC-related clinical trials and warrant further attention.
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.