Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42609948›Full record

ArticleAME clinical trials review2026

A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.

Kaiping Zhang, Savvas Lampridis, Charles B Simone, Ionut Negoi, Yan Peng, Binghan Shang, Yao Lin, Yaling Cheng, Fanghui Yang, Vishal G Shelat and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AME clinical trials review, 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.

Kaiping ZhangEditor-in-Chief, AME Clinical Trials Review.
Savvas LampridisEditorial Team, AME Clinical Trials Review.
Charles B SimoneEditorial Team, AME Clinical Trials Review.
Ionut NegoiEditorial Team, AME Clinical Trials Review.
Yan PengEditorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China.
Binghan ShangEditorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China.
Yao LinEditorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China.
Yaling ChengEditorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China.
Fanghui YangEditorial Office, AME Publishing Company, Hong Kong, China.
Vishal G ShelatEditorial Team, AME Clinical Trials Review.
Kamyar Kalantar-ZadehEditorial Team, AME Clinical Trials Review.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Clinical trials are crucial for evidence-based medicine; however, substantial challenges remain. This review aims to provide an overview of recurring challenges in clinical trials and offer potential strategies to overcome practical barriers for stakeholders. Methods: A search of PubMed for English-language papers, published from January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2025 was conducted, focusing on reflections on trial registration, protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAP), sample size, risk of bias, transparency, reporting, peer review, dissemination, and emerging areas such as artificial intelligence (AI). Key Content and Findings: The clinical trial landscape has expanded dramatically, surpassing one million trials in total. However, it is marked by significant redundancy, waste, and lack of reproducibility. Transparency remains hampered by inadequate prospective registration, unreported results, limited protocol and SAP availability, substandard registration quality, and a lack of core requirements on registration platforms, despite improvements under a series of policy initiatives. Regarding quality and integrity, many trials have a high risk of bias, design flaws, underpowered sample sizes, or uncertain findings. Data fabrication and retractions due to dishonesty contribute to the complexity of this landscape, along with a peer-review workflow that underutilizes appraisal in the pre-submission, preprint, and post-publication stages. Regarding reporting and dissemination, challenges include poor adherence to the CONSORT and SPIRIT guidelines, ambiguous adoption of reporting guidelines by journals, heavy burdens on researchers using reporting guidelines, severe spin reporting of results, and inaccurate public dissemination. In emerging areas, AI is rapidly developing in almost every aspect of clinical trials, including its use in assisting with reviewing the risk of bias and integrity. The most problematic issues are the insufficient disclosure of AI use and inadequate human verification. This review proposes 18 suggestions and 19 strategies to address these concerns, such as requiring registration prior to ethical approval by ethical committees, founding journals dedicated to statistically negative trials, and developing an integrated trial quality feedback and fixing mechanism. Conclusions: There are pressing challenges with uncontrolled trial expansion, insufficient transparency, poor quality, dishonest or wrong practices, biased reporting and dissemination, and insufficient disclosure and verification of AI. The proposed suggestions and strategies may contribute to a healthier clinical trial ecosystem if implemented.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence (AI)Clinical trialsqualityregistryreporting

Identifiers

PMID42609948
PMCPMC13479725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.