Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42142276›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2026

Assessing the Completeness of Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Psoriasis Treatments: A Registry-Publication Comparison Study.

Madeline Rowe, Madison Dinh, Ryan Sherry, Kellen Keefer, Rachel Hazlitt, Ahmed Elghzali, Daniel Archer, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 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

9 authors.

Madeline RoweOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA. madeline.roweresearch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9522-3595
Madison DinhOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Ryan SherryOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Kellen KeeferOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Rachel HazlittOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Ahmed ElghzaliOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Daniel ArcherOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Alicia Ito FordOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesThe interventional landscape for psoriasis has expanded considerably with the introduction of systemic and biologic agents, intensifying the importance of comprehensive adverse event (AE) documentation to inform safe clinical practice. While regulatory initiatives such as the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act Final Rule (FDAAA Final Rule) were designed to enhance clinical trial transparency, disparities between AE data presented in ClinicalTrials.gov and peer-reviewed literature continue to occur, potentially complicating interpretation of publicly available harms information used in evidence synthesis and clinical decision-making. Variability in how serious adverse events (SAEs), other adverse events (OAEs), deaths, and treatment discontinuations due to AE are documented can distort safety perceptions and influence clinical practice. This study compares AE reporting between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications for psoriasis clinical trials and evaluates whether completeness and concordance differ before versus after implementation of the FDAAA Final Rule.

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional analysis using systematic retrieval of psoriasis trials from ClinicalTrials.gov with results posted between 2009 and 2024. Data on AEs-encompassing SAEs, OAEs, treatment discontinuation due to AE, and deaths-were independently abstracted by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through adjudication. Trials were categorized according to FDA regulatory status, and variations in AE documentation were examined using descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, Bland-Altman and funnel plots, and regression modeling.

resultsThe study's primary endpoint was completeness and agreement of AE documentation between ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding peer-reviewed publications across four predefined domains: SAEs, OAEs, discontinuation due to AE, and death. Pre-Final Rule AE reporting patterns were mixed across domains. After implementation of the FDAAA Final Rule, registry entries more consistently reported SAEs, OAEs, and mortality than corresponding publications. Although death documentation in registry entries showed improvement after the rule's enactment, publications demonstrated persistent inconsistency. Following implementation of the FDAAA Final Rule, SAEs were present in 53% of registry records versus 40% of publications. OAEs were captured in 51% of registry entries but only 22% of publications. Disparities in SAE totals occurred in over 90% of trials, frequently with registry entries recording higher counts. Numerous discrepancies stemmed from incomplete calculations, ambiguous characterizations, or AE information confined to narrative text. Both visual and statistical assessments revealed a pattern of underreporting in publications, with minimal temporal improvement irrespective of trial scale or sponsorship type.

conclusionsNotwithstanding current regulatory frameworks, AE documentation for psoriasis trials remains fragmented with substantial inconsistency between registry and published data. These shortcomings undermine rigorous safety assessment and evidence-based clinical recommendations. Improved patient care requires increased integration of registry data into evidence synthesis, better clarification of AE definitions, and standardized AE reporting practices. REGISTRATION: Preregistered on The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD420251081207) and Open Science Framework (4jaz3).

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsClinical Trials as TopicPsoriasisRegistriesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID42142276
PMCPMC13332884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.