ArticlePloS one2026
Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical trials can terminate early for many reasons, including non-scientific reasons. We aimed to develop scalable semi-automated methods to characterize terminated trials and explore a methodology to estimate the risk of experiencing serious adverse events (SAEs) in trials terminated due to non-scientific reasons.
methodsTwo cohorts of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were investigated: (1) a cohort of clinical trials affiliated with German university medical centers (reported as completed between 2009-2017) and (2) a cohort of clinical trials affiliated with Californian university medical centers (reported as completed between 2014-2017). We used these cohorts to explore scalable assessment methods and compare terminated trials to completed ones regarding trial characteristics, including therapeutic focus. In a subset of trials terminated for non-scientific reasons with tabular summary results and a parallel, randomized design, we estimated additional risk for SAE. For the German cohort, if results were missing from ClinicalTrials.gov, results from the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) were included if available.
resultsOf 2,253 German and 1,091 Californian trials, 217 (10%) and 150 (14%) were terminated, respectively. The majority (German: 65%, Californian: 67%) cited non-scientific reasons for termination, primarily low accrual. Compared to completed trials, terminated trials showed lower rates of results reporting: 35% vs. 78% in Germany and 72% vs. 87% in California. Of 242 trials terminated for non-scientific reasons, 14 (6%; 11 from ClinicalTrials.gov, 3 from EUCTR) could be included in the SAE risk assessment. In this limited exploratory analysis, no difference in SAE risk was observed between the intervention and control arms (RR 1.05, 95% CI: 0.76-1.44). DISCUSSION: Results of terminated trials were less frequently reported, limiting opportunities for knowledge generation. Broader adoption of harmonized result reporting standards across registries, structured templates, and improved logic checks could enable scalable assessment approaches and enhance the utility of terminated trial data for clinical research transparency.
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.