Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038717›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026

Characteristics of interventional clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2018-2023.

Rebecca D Sullenger, Robert M Clare, Ali B Abbasi, Karen E Chiswell, Lesley H Curtis, Bradley G Hammill, Martin J Landray, Christopher J Lindsell, Scott M Palmer, Sara Bristol Calvert and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Rebecca D SullengerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8163-3042
Robert M ClareDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.
Ali B AbbasiDepartment of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, USA.
Karen E ChiswellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.
Lesley H CurtisDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.
Bradley G HammillDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.
Martin J LandrayNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK.
Christopher J LindsellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3297-2811
Scott M PalmerDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.
Sara Bristol CalvertClinical Trials Transformation Initiative, USA.
Adrian F HernandezDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3387-9616

Funding

FDA HHS U18 FD005292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: It remains unclear whether the US clinical trial ecosystem is optimized to evaluate medical interventions efficiently. This study characterizes interventional clinical trials in the USA and examines trial progress over five years. Methods: Using the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, we conducted a cross-sectional study of interventional trials initiated in 2023 and a follow-up cohort tracking five-year completion for trials started in 2018 and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov as of 05/01/2024 by sponsor and therapeutic area. Trials with at least one US site were included. Primary outcomes were enrollment, completion status, intervention type, study arm design, and plan to share individual participant data. Results: Over 7,500 trials met inclusion criteria for each cohort. Most trials started in 2018 (68.4%) and 2023 (62.5%) enrolled fewer than 100 participants. Median enrollment in 2023 was higher for NIH (90) than industry-sponsored (76) trials. Within five years, 60.5% of the 2018 trials were completed, with higher completion among industry (60.9%) than NIH-sponsored (54.3%) trials. In 2023, industry predominantly funded cancer studies and trials testing drug interventions, whereas the NIH prioritized mental health studies and behavioral interventions. More than one-quarter of trials used a single-group design, 72.0% did not plan to share participant-level data, and 72.6% of drug trials were early phase. Conclusion: Many clinical trials are small, lack a control group, and are incomplete within five years, with differences by sponsor. Given the urgent need to improve health through rigorous evidence generation, there are likely opportunities to improve the US clinical trial ecosystem.

Indexed as

actionable dataClinical trialsClinicaltrials.govhealth policyinterventional trials

Identifiers

PMID42038717
PMCPMC13107079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.