Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42919398›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

Design, reporting, and research focus of neurology and psychiatry drug trials (2020-2023): a registry-based meta-epidemiological study using ClinicalTrials.gov and NLP.

Simona Emilova Doneva, Beate Sick, Tilia R Ellendorff, Jean-Philippe Goldman, Daniel S Reich, Lars G Hemkens, Gerold Schneider, Benjamin Victor Ineichen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 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

8 authors.

Simona Emilova DonevaCenter for Reproducible Science and Research Synthesis, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Simona.doneva@uzh.ch.
Beate SickCenter for Reproducible Science and Research Synthesis, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tilia R EllendorffDepartment of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jean-Philippe GoldmanDepartment of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Daniel S ReichNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lars G HemkensDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Gerold SchneiderDepartment of Computational Linguistics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Benjamin Victor IneichenCenter for Reproducible Science and Research Synthesis, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical trial registries document trial design, funding, and results reporting, but heterogeneous and unstructured entries limit cross-trial comparison. Consequently, it is unclear how neurology and psychiatry drug trials are designed and reported in practice, hampering comparison of studies, understanding of the available evidence, and planning of future trials. The aim of this study was to quantify trial design features, results reporting practices, and research focus in neurology and psychiatry drug trials using harmonized registry data.

methodsThis is a registry-based observational study of interventional neurology and psychiatry drug trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 2000 and 2023. Using natural language processing (NLP) with manual validation, we extracted and harmonized trial information on phase, randomization, masking, sample size, funding source, results reporting, and target diseases and drugs. We also performed content-based clustering and visualization to explore patterns across trials by drug and disease category. We analyzed temporal trends and differences across trial characteristics.

resultsWe included 18,609 trials. Most were early phase, single-center, and small, typically enrolling 11-50 participants; 60% were completed. Industry funded 36% of trials, with a declining share over time and a corresponding increase in university sponsorship. Ten percent of trials were non-randomized and 38% were open label. Among trials completed after 2007, 50% reported results, with a mean delay of 12 months. The most frequently studied conditions were pain (10%), schizophrenia (8%), depression (8%), and Alzheimer's disease (7%). Drug testing was widely distributed, with atypical antipsychotics, levodopa, and ketamine each accounting for 1-2% of trials. Content-based clustering identified disease-specific groupings of trials. Harmonized data are available through an interactive dashboard.

conclusionsRegistered neurology and psychiatry drug trials show persistent limitations in design and results reporting despite two decades of registry requirements. Registry-based analyses using computational harmonization can support empirical evaluation of trial practices and inform future trial design and reporting.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicMental DisordersNatural Language ProcessingNeurologyPsychiatryPsychotropic DrugsRegistriesResearch DesignHumansPsychotropic DrugsAlzheimer’s diseaseClinical trial registriesClinicalTrials.govCNS drug trialsDepressionMultiple sclerosisNatural language processing (NLP)NeurologyPainParkinson’s diseasePsychiatryResults reportingSchizophreniaTrial design

Identifiers

PMID42919398

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.