ArticleTrials2026
Development of a database for investigating characteristics and quality of published clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: design, implementation, and application.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven the increasing long-term burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), scientifically rigorous, efficient, and sustainable disease management has become a critical priority. However, the exponential proliferation of publications and the increasing granularity of research topics have amplified the difficulty of retrieving, integrating, and utilizing clinical evidence. Establishing a systematically curated, disease-specific clinical trial database can therefore provide a robust data foundation for diverse secondary research.
methodsUsing a combined strategy of individual-level literature searching and meta-epidemiological approaches, we systematically searched for primary clinical trial reports published before June 30, 2023. The literature data were sourced from PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, Wanfang Database, and China Biology Medicine Database (CBM). Trial data were extracted using the CONSORT reporting standards, and the risk of bias in clinical trials was assessed using the ROB 2.0.
resultsIn the search results, we identified 36,127 English RCTs and 142,670 Chinese RCTs, along with 4019 English meta-analyses and 3219 Chinese meta-analyses. Screening of the English-language literature was completed, and upon merging the two sets of search results, a duplication rate of 61.6% was found, resulting in the inclusion of 2261 primary trial reports. The included literature primarily focused on drug treatment [1087 (48.1%)] and pulmonary rehabilitation studies [607 (26.8%)]. Within drug treatment research, inhaled western medications garnered the most attention [684 (30.3%)], followed by oral western medications [299 (13.2%)].
conclusionThis study preliminarily established a structured, manually curated database comprising 2261 English-language COPD clinical trials. Currently, the repository provides a preliminary stratification of these trials and illustrates the superior comprehensiveness of a dual-track retrieval strategy over a single search approach. Moving forward, the database will transition into an open-access research platform and be continuously updated to ensure its comprehensiveness and timeliness.
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.