Observational studyBMJ open2026
Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify cross-registrations (ie, registrations of the same trial in different registries) among clinical trials affiliated with German University Medical Centres (UMCs) and to describe how these cross-registrations are linked. To determine the consistency of key information across registrations of the same trial.
designObservational cross-sectional study.
settingRegistry-based study of clinical trials affiliated with German UMCs.
participants2895 interventional trials affiliated with German UMCs, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) and completed between 2009 and 2017.
main outcome measuresNumber of potential cross-registrations involving the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and the type of linkage between these cross-registrations. In a manually validated subset, consistency across registry entries of the same trial was assessed for prospective registration, recruitment status, completion date and availability of summary results.
resultsWe identified 625 potential EUCTR cross-registrations. The majority of potential cross-registrations (n=470; 75%) were linked through a trial registration number (TRN) in at least one of the registries. Only 109 (17%) were linked through a TRN in both registries. Title matching and TRNs in trial results publications led to an additional 155 (25%) potential cross-registrations. In a sample of 228 manually confirmed EUCTR cross-registrations, 85% (95% CI 80% to 89%; n=189) had the same overall recruitment status while 50% (95% CI 43% to 57%; n=92) had the same completion date across registrations of the same trial. EUCTR was the dominant route for summary results availability and included structured tabular results as well as other formats.
conclusionsAmong trials affiliated with German UMCs, cross-registrations are common, yet often inadequately linked and present discrepant information. In Germany, where registration in multiple registries is common, cross-registrations can meaningfully influence assessments of trial registration and results reporting and therefore warrant explicit consideration in transparency monitoring.
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.