ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Characteristics and research waste of immunotherapy randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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: Immunotherapy spans tumor and non-tumor disciplines, yet the surge in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has not yielded proportional improvements in evidence quality, leading to substantial research waste. In this study, the immunotherapy RCT landscape was characterized, and the prevalence and risk factors for research waste were quantified. Methods: This registry-based cross-sectional study analyzed phase III/IV immunotherapy RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov. The publication status was verified via PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Research waste was defined as non-publication, inadequate reporting (CONSORT 2010), or avoidable design flaws (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool). Associations between study characteristics and outcomes (publication status and waste) were evaluated using logistic regression. Results: Among the 164 RCTs analyzed, 127 (77.4%) exhibited research waste. With respect to publication status, 74 (45.1%) were published, and 90 (54.9%) were unpublished. Multivariate analysis revealed that non-tumor diseases (adjusted OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09-0.85, P = 0.028) and a quadruple-blind design (adjusted OR = 4.84, 95% CI: 1.71-14.90, P = 0.004) were significantly associated with publication status. Univariable analysis revealed that non-tumor diseases (OR = 4.36, 95% CI: 2.02-9.57, P<0.001) and European principal investigators (PIs) (OR = 3.48, 95% CI: 1.49-8.16, P = 0.004) were positively correlated with waste, whereas international recruitment (OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07-0.36, P<0.001), multicenter design (OR = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.35, P<0.001), and large sample size (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.60, P = 0.001) were negatively correlated. After adjustment, non-tumor diseases remained a risk factor (OR = 3.84, 95% CI: 1.18-13.54, P = 0.029), whereas a multicenter design had a strong protective effect (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.00-0.57, P = 0.030). Conclusions: This study revealed a high incidence of research waste in immunotherapy RCTs, which was predominantly driven by non-tumor studies. These findings underscore the urgent need to prioritize large-scale collaborative frameworks to optimize resource allocation and ensure reliable clinical 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.