ArticleFrontiers in aging neuroscience2026
Research waste of randomized controlled trials related to deep brain stimulation: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research waste undermines the value of clinical trials. This study aimed to quantify its prevalence, characterize its forms, and identify associated factors in phase III/IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of DBS trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Research waste was defined as non-publication, inadequate reporting, or avoidable design flaws. Trial characteristics were extracted from registry entries. Publication status was ascertained by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. The chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to compare groups, and logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with outcomes. Results: Among 26 eligible RCTs, the non-publication rate was 65.38%. Only 5 trials (19.23%) were free of research waste. All published trials and all waste-free trials were registered before 2009, whereas 64.71% of unpublished trials were registered in 2010 or later ( Conclusion: Research waste is a widespread phenomenon in DBS RCTs. Effective coordination and resource management are paramount in translating DBS research into publicly accessible evidence.
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.