ArticleScientific reports2026
A cross-sectional analysis of research waste in randomized controlled trials on postoperative cognitive dysfunction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Research waste of randomized controlled trials related to deep brain stimulation: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common postoperative complication in older adults, with high-quality evidence mainly from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, research heterogeneity in this field may lead to significant waste, yet a systematic assessment is lacking. To analyze characteristics of POCD-related RCTs, quantify research waste, and explore influencing factors. This cross-sectional study searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify registered RCTs initiated since 2000 that involved adult surgical patients and assessed postoperative cognitive function as a primary or secondary outcome. We extracted trial characteristics and evaluated publication status, reporting quality, and risk of design flaws. Analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression. Among 53 included RCTs, trials were predominantly drug-based (94.34%), single-center (75.47%), and non-department funded (98.11%), with Asia being the largest contributing region (43.40%). Of 43 trials completed by 2023, only 7 (16.3%) were published, mostly from North America/Europe (P = 0.012). Reporting quality was good, but 42.9% had design flaws. Research waste reached 90.7% (39/43), and Asian-origin trials showed the highest waste rate (51.28%, P = 0.028). Regression suggested trends linking larger sample sizes/multicenter designs to lower waste and non-Western regions to higher waste/lower publication, but these were not statistically significant. In conclusion, POCD RCTs exhibit high research waste with notable geographic imbalance. Waste appears multifactorial. Enhancing methodological rigor and improving research translation mechanisms are needed to optimize resource use and evidence quality.
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.