ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Research waste among randomized clinical trials in endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: a cross-sectional study of ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cross-sectional analysis of research waste in randomized controlled trials on postoperative cognitive dysfunction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Research waste of randomized controlled trials related to deep brain stimulation: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the association between the characteristics of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on endoscopic resection and research waste, and to explore potential targets for improvement.
methodsClinicalTrials.gov was searched for phase 3 or 4 RCTs registered between January 01,2000 and December 31, 2021 using the keyword endoscopic resection along with synonyms. The publication status was determined by conducting systematic searches in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The adequacy of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Reporting Guideline Checklist. Design limitations were evaluated based on risk of bias and whether the manuscript cited a relevant systematic review. The primary outcome was research waste, defined as unpublished data, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design limitations.
resultsA total of 86 trials were included. Only 47 (54.7%) RCTs were published after peer review. These trials were more likely than unpublished RCTs to focus on colorectal disease (68.1% vs. 35.9%, P = 0.003) and to have a multicenter design (44.7% vs. 25.6%, P = 0.067). Among the RCTs that were published, 24 (51.1%) of them were deemed to have sufficient reporting and were free from any design limitations. Overall, 70 of the 86 RCTs (81.4%) exhibited research waste. Multivariate analysis revealed that a blinded (P = 0.021) and multicenter (P = 0.017) RCT design independently reduced the risk of research waste.
conclusionMost RCTs on endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions could be burdened by research waste. Efforts should focus on improving unblinded, single-center RCTs to reduce unnecessary research waste.
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.