Publication and reporting of clinical trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers

Transgender people in clinical trials of drugs and biologics: An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 to 2023

AIMS

Transgender people have unmet health needs related to chronic conditions such as dementia, osteoporosis and hypertension. Community-driven advocacy increased transgender representation in phase III trials for pharmacological prevention of HIV, but the extent to which drug trials for other conditions have included transgender people is unknown. We investigated the extent to which trials of drugs and biologics represented transgender people across therapeutic areas on ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of trials of drugs and biologics registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2023. We included efficacy and effectiveness trials (phase II-IV) with transgender-related terms (e.g. 'transgend*'). We labelled trials as Inclusive or Exclusive of transgender people using the trial eligibility criteria. We compared trials (therapeutic area, trial design, enrolment), summarized trials registered from 2008 onward and characterized participant enrolment for Inclusive trials with primary trial publications. We summarized continuous data using median (range), categorical data using frequencies and percentages and compared trial characteristics using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven trials represented transgender people. Characteristics were similar between 85 Inclusive and 12 Exclusive trials. Among Inclusive trials, 58% focused on infectious diseases (e.g. treatment or prevention of HIV and COVID-19), 15% on mental health (e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use-related disorders), and the remainder focused on endocrine (9%), pain (5%), digestive system disorders (1%) and neoplasms (1%). Twenty (of 25) trials reported enrolment of transgender participants in primary trial publications or reported results.

CONCLUSION

Transgender-inclusive trials have increased since 2008. Most trials focused on infectious diseases and mental health. Investigators should increase opportunities to include of transgender people in trials of drugs and biologics for chronic diseases.

Reporting of interventional clinical trial results in an academic center: a survey of completed studies

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of clinical trial results is an important scientific and ethical endeavour. This survey of completed interventional studies in a French academic center describes their reporting status.

METHODS

We explored all interventional studies sponsored by Rennes University Hospital identified on the French Open Science Monitor which tracks trials registered on EUCTR or clinicaltrials.gov, and provides an automatic assessment of the reporting of results. For each study, we ascertained the actual reporting of results using systematic searches on the hospital internal database, bibliographic databases (Google Scholar, PubMed), and by contacting all principal investigators (PIs). We describe several features (including total budget and numbers of trial participants) of the studies that did not report any results.

RESULTS

The French Open Science Monitor identified 93 interventional studies, among which 10 (11%) reported results. In contrast, our survey identified 36 studies (39%) reporting primary analysis results and an additional 18 (19%) reporting results for secondary analyses (without results for their primary analysis). The overall budget for studies that did not report any results was estimated to be €5,051,253 for a total of 6,735 trial participants. The most frequent reasons for the absence of results reported by PIs were lack of time for 18 (42%), and logistic difficulties (e.g. delay in obtaining results or another blocking factor) for 12 (28%). An association was found between non-publication and negative results (adjusted Odds Ratio = 4.70, 95% Confidence Interval [1.67;14.11]).

CONCLUSIONS

Even allowing for the fact that automatic searches underestimate the number of studies with published results, the level of reporting was disappointingly low. This amounts to a waste of trial participants' implication and money. Corrective actions are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/q5hcs.

Evidence-b(i)ased practice: Selective and inadequate reporting in early childhood autism intervention research

LAY ABSTRACT

When researchers fail to report their findings or only report some of their findings, it can make it difficult for clinicians to provide effective intervention recommendations. However, no one has examined whether this is a problem in studies of early childhood autism interventions. We studied how researchers that study early childhood autism interventions report their findings. We found that most researchers did not register their studies when they were supposed to (before the start of the study), and that many researchers did not provide all of the needed information in the registration. We also found that researchers frequently did not publish their findings when their studies were complete. When we looked at published reports, we found that many of the studies did not report enough information, and that many studies were reported differently from their registrations, suggesting that researchers were selectively reporting positive outcomes and ignoring or misrepresenting less positive outcomes. Because we found so much evidence that researchers are failing to report their findings quickly and correctly, we suggested some practical changes to make it better.

Availability of results of clinical trials registered on EU Clinical Trials Register: cross sectional audit study

Objective

To identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.

Design

Cross sectional audit study.

Setting

EUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.

Population

Random sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).

Main outcome measures

Proportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.

Results

In the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).

Conclusions

EUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.

Publication of Results of Registered Trials With Published Study Protocols, 2011-2022

Importance

Publishing study protocols might reduce research waste because of unclear methods or incomplete reporting; on the other hand, there might be few additional benefits of publishing protocols for registered trials that are never completed or published. No study has investigated the proportion of published protocols associated with published results.

Objective

To estimate the proportion of published trial protocols for which there are not associated published results.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used stratified random sampling to identify registered clinical trials with protocols published between January 2011 and August 2022 and indexed in PubMed Central. Ongoing studies and those within 1 year of the primary completion date on ClinicalTrials.gov were excluded. Published results were sought from August 2022 to March 2023 by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, emailing authors, and using an automated tool, as well as through incidental discovery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a weighted estimate of the proportion of registered trials with published protocols that also had published main results. The proportion of trials with unpublished results was estimated using a weighted mean.

Results

From 1500 citations that were screened, 308 clinical trial protocols were included, and it was found that 87 trials had not published their main results. Most included trials were investigator-initiated evaluations of nonregulated products. When published, results appeared a mean (SD) of 3.4 (2.0) years after protocol publications. With the use of a weighted mean, an estimated 4754 (95% CI, 4296-5226) eligible clinical trial protocols were published and indexed in PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022. In the weighted analysis, 1708 of those protocols (36%; 95% CI, 31%-41%) were not associated with publication of main results. In a sensitivity analysis excluding protocols published after 2019, an estimated 25% (95% CI, 20%-30%) of 3670 (95% CI, 3310-4032) protocol publications were not associated with publication of main results.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study of clinical trial protocols published on PubMed Central between 2011 and 2022 suggests that many protocols were not associated with subsequent publication of results. The overall benefits of publishing study protocols might outweigh the research waste caused by unnecessary protocol publications.

Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The results of clinical trials should be completely and rapidly reported during public health emergencies such as COVID-19. This study aimed to examine when, and where, the results of COVID-19 clinical trials were disseminated throughout the first 18 months of the pandemic.

METHODS

Clinical trials for COVID-19 treatment or prevention were identified from the WHO ICTRP database. All interventional trials with a registered completion date ≤ 30 June 2021 were included. Trial results, published as preprints, journal articles, or registry results, were located using automated and manual techniques across PubMed, Google Scholar, Google, EuropePMC, CORD-19, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and clinical trial registries. Our main analysis reports the rate of dissemination overall and per route, and the time from registered completion to results using Kaplan-Meier methods, with additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 1643 trials with completion dates ranging from 46 to 561 days prior to the start of results searches were included. The cumulative probability of reporting was 12.5% at 3 months from completion, 21.6% at 6 months, and 32.8% at 12 months. Trial results were most commonly disseminated in journals (n = 278 trials, 69.2%); preprints were available for 194 trials (48.3%), 86 (44.3%) of which converted to a full journal article. Trials completed earlier in the pandemic were reported more rapidly than those later in the pandemic, and those involving ivermectin were more rapidly reported than other common interventions. Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses except when considering only trials in a "completed" status on the registry, which substantially increased reporting rates. Poor trial registry data on completion status and dates limits the precision of estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 trials saw marginal increases in reporting rates compared to standard practice; most registered trials failed to meet even the 12-month non-pandemic standard. Preprints were common, complementing journal publication; however, registries were underutilized for rapid reporting. Maintaining registry data enables accurate representation of clinical research; failing to do so undermines these registries' use for public accountability and analysis. Addressing rapid reporting and registry data quality must be emphasized at global, national, and institutional levels.

Evolving landscape of clinical trials in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms in the past two decades

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are heterogenous malignancies that require well-designed trials to develop effective management strategies. This cross-sectional study aimed to illustrate the current landscape of clinical trials in GEP-NENs to provide insights for future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2021 with GEP-NEN in the 'condition or disease' field.

RESULTS

We included 206 eligible trials. Most trials enrolled less than 50 patients (59.8%) and were sponsored by institutions other than government or industry (67.0%). Most trials were conducted in high-income countries (86.6%) and countries located in Europe (30.1%) or Northern America (29.6%). The overall result reporting rates of GEP-NEN trials was 41.4%, and the median time from primary completion to result reporting was 101 months. Characteristics that improved the reporting of results included larger sample size, tumor differentiation specification for inclusion, progression-free survival as primary endpoint, industry sponsorship, and multicenter or multinational participation (all P < 0.05). Compared with trials registered between 2000 and 2011 (n = 28), trials registered between 2012 and 2021 (n = 178) were more likely to specify the Ki-67 index for inclusion (68.0% vs 35.7%, P = 0.002) and to be conducted outside Europe or Northern America (16.4% vs 3.7%, P = 0.02), while the sample size and the sponsorship did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel management options have been explored for GEP-NENs with more specific inclusion criteria during the past two decades. More efforts are needed to promote international collaborations in clinical trials and enhance timely result dissemination.

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

BACKGROUND

University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Disparities in positive results and dissemination of randomized controlled trials in immuno-oncology

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis aimed to demonstrate the disparities in positive results and dissemination patterns of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in global immuno-oncology (IO).

METHODS

Phase II-IV RCTs with results reported by article publications registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007-2018 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer, cancer vaccines, and immune modulators were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent of trials were positive (72 of 258), most of which were pharma-sponsored and focused on ICI and multiple IO therapies in lung cancer, melanoma, and multiple cancer types. The recent period of trial start year, upfront registration, large sample size, high strictness score on corticosteroid/infection-related criteria, and survival endpoints were associated with positive results. Trials from Mainland China had a faster publication timeline of positive results but lacked study diversity or full reporting of negative results compared with US and multinational trials. Compared with phase II trials, phase III-IV trials had a higher average proportion of positive results (28.9% vs. 22.2%) and a more stable change over the past decade (23.65% vs. 49.24%). Positive trials yielded more secondary manuscripts (10 vs. 4), a shorter publication process of approximately two years (P < 0.001), and a superiority in the dissemination of journals with an h-index >90 (P < 0.001) compared with negative trials.

CONCLUSION

Disparities in positive result dissemination are widespread in IO RCTs and affected by trial features. We proposed improvements in upfront registration, procedural integrity, and adequate inclusion of rival trials reporting negative results within the earlier two years in future reviews.

Dissemination of the Results of Pediatric Clinical Trials Funded by the US National Institutes of Health

This study examines practices related to trial registration and results submission in ClinicalTrials.gov and publication of pediatric clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Early discontinuation and results reporting of robot-assisted surgery studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a research on research study

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to investigate the characteristics of robot-assisted surgery studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify factors associated with early trial discontinuation and timely results reporting.

DESIGN

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify interventional studies on robot-assisted surgery on 24 May 2021. All structured information of the potential studies was downloaded and reviewed. A descriptive analysis was performed. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were respectively performed to determine the significance of the association of study characteristics with results reporting and early discontinuation.

RESULTS

A total of 529 interventional studies on robot-assisted surgery were included, with 45 studies reporting results and 54 studies being stopped early. Of the 289 due studies, only 45 (16%) had submitted their results, and only 6 (2%) had submitted their results within the 1-year deadline. Funding source was associated with results reporting: academic funded were 63% less likely than industry to report results (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.83, p=0.02). Studies related to device feasibility were associated with greater risk of early discontinuation compared to treatment-related studies (HR=2.30, 95% CI: 1.08 to 4.89, p=0.03). Surprisingly, National Institutes of Health-funded studies were at greater hazard of discontinuation compared to industry-funded studies (HR=3.30, 95% CI: 1.09 to 10.00, p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There was poor compliance with results reporting requirements for robot-assisted surgical studies. It is important that investigators remain informed about the regulatory requirements, and should be helped to develop a sense of responsibility for reporting results. Also, they need to ensure the careful design of the study protocol and adequate resources to reduce the risk of early discontinuation.

Discontinuation and nonpublication of clinical trials for the pharmacologic treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder among military veterans

Failures by researchers and clinicians to overcome barriers in veteran health-related research may result in clinical trial (CT) discontinuation and nonpublication. Such outcomes are a waste of limited academic resources. To determine rates of discontinuation and nonpublication among CTs for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with pharmaceutical interventions specific to the veteran population, we performed a systematic search of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov for pharmaceutical interventions for the treatment of PTSD. Extracted study characteristics included sample size, study design, trial status, phase, and funding source. Studies were classified as completed or discontinued based on the status listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Descriptive statistics of trials were reported, and associations of trial termination and nonpublication were assessed using logistic regression. The final sample included 54 CTs, 15 of which (27.8%) had not been published within the FDA's required timeframe, and 11 (20.4%) were discontinued. The total number of trial participants was 3,463, with a median of 37 (interquartile range: 15-92). Of the 54 trials, 12 (22.2%) were nonrandomized, and 42 (77.8%) were randomized. There were 25 (46.3%) trials that were in either Phase 3 or Phase 4, and 39 (72.2%) were government-funded. We found high rates of CT discontinuation and nonpublication among PTSD pharmaceutical intervention studies in veterans, as has been shown in other fields of research.

Empirical studies on how ethical recommendations are translated into practice: a cross-section study on scope and study objectives

BACKGROUND

Empirical research can become relevant for bioethics in at least two ways. First, by informing the development or refinement of ethical recommendations. Second, by evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice. This study aims to investigate the scope and objectives of empirical studies evaluating how ethical recommendations are translated into practice.

METHODS

A sample of the latest 400 publications from four bioethics journals was created and screened. All publications were included if they met one of the following three criteria: (1) evaluative empirical research, (2) non-evaluative empirical research and (3) borderline cases. For all publications categorized as evaluative empirical research we analyzed which objects (norms and recommendations) had been evaluated.

RESULTS

234 studies were included of which 54% (n = 126) were categorized as non-evaluative empirical studies, 36% (n = 84) as evaluative empirical studies, and 10% (n = 24) as borderline cases. The object of evaluation were aspirational norms in 5 of the 84 included evaluative empirical studies, more specific norms in 14 (16%) studies and concrete best practices in 65 (77%) studies. The specific best practices can be grouped under five broader categories: ethical procedures, ethical institutions, clinical or research practices, educational programs, and legal regulations.

CONCLUSIONS

This mapping study shows that empirical evaluative studies can be found at all stages in the translational process from theory to best practices. Our study suggests two intertwined dimensions for structuring the field of evaluative/translational empirical studies in bioethics: First, three broader categories of evaluation objects and second five categories for types of best practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The methodology used was described in a study protocol that was registered publicly on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/r6h4y/ ).

Predicting Publication of Clinical Trials Using Structured and Unstructured Data: Model Development and Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Publication of registered clinical trials is a critical step in the timely dissemination of trial findings. However, a significant proportion of completed clinical trials are never published, motivating the need to analyze the factors behind success or failure to publish. This could inform study design, help regulatory decision-making, and improve resource allocation. It could also enhance our understanding of bias in the publication of trials and publication trends based on the research direction or strength of the findings. Although the publication of clinical trials has been addressed in several descriptive studies at an aggregate level, there is a lack of research on the predictive analysis of a trial's publishability given an individual (planned) clinical trial description.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a study that combined structured and unstructured features relevant to publication status in a single predictive approach. Established natural language processing techniques as well as recent pretrained language models enabled us to incorporate information from the textual descriptions of clinical trials into a machine learning approach. We were particularly interested in whether and which textual features could improve the classification accuracy for publication outcomes.

METHODS

In this study, we used metadata from ClinicalTrials.gov (a registry of clinical trials) and MEDLINE (a database of academic journal articles) to build a data set of clinical trials (N=76,950) that contained the description of a registered trial and its publication outcome (27,702/76,950, 36% published and 49,248/76,950, 64% unpublished). This is the largest data set of its kind, which we released as part of this work. The publication outcome in the data set was identified from MEDLINE based on clinical trial identifiers. We carried out a descriptive analysis and predicted the publication outcome using 2 approaches: a neural network with a large domain-specific language model and a random forest classifier using a weighted bag-of-words representation of text.

RESULTS

First, our analysis of the newly created data set corroborates several findings from the existing literature regarding attributes associated with a higher publication rate. Second, a crucial observation from our predictive modeling was that the addition of textual features (eg, eligibility criteria) offers consistent improvements over using only structured data (F₁-score=0.62-0.64 vs F₁-score=0.61 without textual features). Both pretrained language models and more basic word-based representations provide high-utility text representations, with no significant empirical difference between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Different factors affect the publication of a registered clinical trial. Our approach to predictive modeling combines heterogeneous features, both structured and unstructured. We show that methods from natural language processing can provide effective textual features to enable more accurate prediction of publication success, which has not been explored for this task previously.

Assessing the magnitude of reporting bias in trials of homeopathy: a cross-sectional study and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the magnitude of reporting bias in trials assessing homeopathic treatments and its impact on evidence syntheses.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study and meta-analysis. Two persons independently searched Clinicaltrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to April 2019 to identify registered homeopathy trials. To determine whether registered trials were published and to detect published but unregistered trials, two persons independently searched PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Embase and Google Scholar up to April 2021. For meta-analyses, we used random effects models to determine the impact of unregistered studies on meta-analytic results.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

We report the proportion of registered but unpublished trials and the proportion of published but unregistered trials. We also assessed whether primary outcomes were consistent between registration and publication. For meta-analyses, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

Since 2002, almost 38% of registered homeopathy trials have remained unpublished, and 50% of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been registered. Retrospective registration was more common than prospective registration. Furthermore, 25% of primary outcomes were altered or changed compared with the registry. Although we could detect a statistically significant trend toward an increase of registrations of homeopathy trials (p=0.001), almost 30% of RCTs published during the past 5 years had not been registered.A meta-analysis stratified by registration status of RCTs revealed substantially larger treatment effects of unregistered RCTs (SMD: -0.53, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.20) than registered RCTs (SMD: -0.14, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Registration of published trials was infrequent, many registered trials were not published and primary outcomes were often altered or changed. This likely affects the validity of the body of evidence of homeopathic literature and may overestimate the true treatment effect of homeopathic remedies.

Trial registration and time to publication in a retrospective cohort of publicly funded randomised controlled trials in New Zealand 1999-2017

OBJECTIVES

To determine how quickly randomised controlled trials funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) were registered and published, and whether time to publication differed by trial result.

DESIGN

We created a retrospective cohort of trials offered funding from 1999 to 2017 by seeking lists of candidate studies using the Official Information Act 1982. These lists were supplemented by searching the HRC's online research repository and an open-access database on Figshare. One investigator searched for trial registrations and for dissemination using electronic databases, university websites and ResearchGate. One investigator extracted data from the obtained studies and a second investigator independently corroborated the data entry from a 10% random sample.

RESULTS

We identified 258 trials that were offered funding, 252 trials were conducted and 229 (90.9%) were registered, 179 prospectively by the date of the final search (24 March 2022). Overall, 236 trials were completed by the date of the last search and in 209 (88.6%) trials the results had been disseminated, 200 (84.7%) of which were by journal publication. We obtained the results for 214 trials, 91 (42.5%) of which were positive, 120 (56.1%) of which were null and 3 (1.4%) of which were negative. Median time to publication was 22.7 months for positive trials and 21.5 months for combined null or negative trials (log rank test p=0.83). Median time since trial completion in the trials that had not been published was 43.6 months (IQR 17.1-108.2 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 1999 and 2017, almost 9 out of every 10 HRC-funded trials had been registered and a similar proportion of completed trials had been published with no difference in time to publication based on type of result. However, only a slim majority of trials had published within the 2-year time frame set by the WHO.

The proportion of randomized controlled trials that inform clinical practice

Prior studies suggest that clinical trials are often hampered by problems in design, conduct and reporting that limit their uptake in clinical practice. We have described 'informativeness' as the ability of a trial to guide clinical, policy or research decisions. Little is known about the proportion of initiated trials that inform clinical practice. We created a cohort of randomized interventional clinical trials in three disease areas (ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and lung cancer), that were initiated between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2010 using ClinicalTrials.gov. We restricted inclusion to trials aimed at answering a clinical question related to the treatment or prevention of disease. Our primary outcome was the proportion of clinical trials fulfilling four conditions of informativeness: importance of the clinical question, trial design, feasibility, and reporting of results. Our study included 125 clinical trials. The proportion meeting four conditions for informativeness was 26.4% (95% CI 18.9 - 35.0). Sixty-seven percent of participants were enrolled in informative trials. The proportion of informative trials did not differ significantly between our three disease areas. Our results suggest that the majority of clinical trials designed to guide clinical practice possess features that may compromise their ability to do so. This highlights opportunities to improve the scientific vetting of clinical research.

Clinical trials of stem cell-based therapies for pediatric diseases: a comprehensive analysis of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP portal site

BACKGROUND

Research on clinical trials that employ stem cells to treat children's diseases is limited. The clinical trial registry database provides a unique window to us to get known about clinical trial researches with different statuses. However, few studies aimed to perform a comprehensive and thorough analysis of those registered trials in the aforementioned field based on ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP portal site.

METHODS

Our study covered the clinical researches about stem cell therapy enrolling subjects aged under 18 years old registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP before May 18, 2021. A cross-sectional study was implemented to comprehensively describe and analyze the included trials that met the criteria. Results were available on ClinicalTrials.gov, and publications related to the included trials were identified. All analyses were performed utilizing the SPSS 25.0 software.

RESULTS

Eventually, 202 clinical trials were included and evaluated. The participant number of trials tended to be small; 71.3% were enrolled < 50. And 93.5% of the subjects were without gender restrictions. Till May 2020, 112 trials had been preliminary completed, of which only 39 trials had published papers or uploaded results. Most (73.6%) of 186 interventional trials were in phase 1 and phase 2, where 131 (70.4%) trials were conducted without masking, and 26.3% trials were randomized; 55.4% trials were performed single group assignment. Of 16 observational trials, case-only/series took up 37.5%. Hematopoietic stem cells (37.1%) and mesenchymal stem cells (36.1%) were mostly employed, while umbilical cord blood (UCB)-derived cells (24.3%) and bone marrow (BM)-derived cells (20.8%) were the major sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided an overall picture of utilizing stem cells for treatment and management of childhood diseases. Since clinical trials in this area are insufficient in quantity and quality, there is an urgent need of larger, better-designed trials. Increased investment in clinical research of stem cell treatment products should be carried out to achieve the transformation of results as soon as possible. Moreover, it is important to optimize the management of the registration platform and shorten the time it takes for research results to be published.

Publication of neurology clinical trials registered with clinical trial registry of India: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Unbiased and full disclosure of trial results is vital to evidence-based medicine. Non-publication and selective publication leads to publication bias and unrealistic risk-benefit ratio. In the present study, we aim to determine the publication rate of clinical trials related to neurology registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), compare the characteristics of published and unpublished trials, and evaluate the adherence of investigators to ethics-approved criteria and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional search using the keyword "neurology" was carried out in CTRI registry. Two independent investigators searched Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar for published manuscripts. The final literature search occurred in November 2021.

RESULTS

Out of 325 trials, 102 trials were published (31.4%). Ninety-one trials were beyond 3 years of expected time of trial completion and were still unpublished. Randomized trials had a slightly higher publication rate than non-randomized ones (56% vs. 46%, p = .223); however the difference was not statistically significant. Majority of trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were not published, while majority of those sponsored by non-pharmaceutical institutions were published (34.5% vs. 69.3%, p < .001). Feedback to CTRI about trial status was particularly poor (31.5% - informed vs. 68.5% - not informed, p < .001). 52 (50.9%) and 65 (63.7%) of the 102 published trials had changed the registered inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, in the CTRI registry compared to those in the published manuscript. In 29 (28.3%) of the 102 trials, the primary outcome did not match with that registered in the CTRI and in 73 (57.8%) trials, the secondary outcomes did not match.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of neurology registered trials are still unpublished, with a majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials not being published. There is scope for improving the provisions in CTRI for enlisting trial results, that may prevent publication bias and also ensure the investigators adhere to the pre-specified ethics approved trial procedures and outcomes.

Availability of results of academic randomized trials involving cooperative groups in oncology in France: A systematic search of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Cooperative groups' involvement is increasing in academic oncological research. We aimed to assess the impact of sponsoring by cooperative groups in France on the availability of results of academic randomized trials in oncology.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Clinical Trials Register. We searched for all academic randomized trials in oncology conducted in France between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2015. The inclusion criteria were: completed or terminated, phase 2 or 3 randomized trials with an academic (non-industry) sponsor. The main outcome was the publication of the results of trial (either as a journal article or as posting results in a registry) across each type of sponsor.

RESULTS

We included 211 randomized trials, mainly phase 3 (n = 135, 64%) and evaluating pharmacological treatments (n = 149, 71%). French cooperative groups were involved in 69 trials (33%), as part of a collaboration in one third (n = 23) of instances. Seventy-one (34%) trials were run by oncologic hospitals, 50 (23%) by university hospitals, and 21 (10%) by European organizations. Seventy-seven randomized trials (36%) had available results (published n = 73, posted n = 6). Cooperative groups were involved in half of those that have been published (37/73). The cumulative probability of results availability was 57% for cooperative groups, 41% for European organizations, 32% for oncologic hospitals, and 17% for university hospital at 10 years from the beginning of trials (p = 0.0006). In the case of collaboration with cooperative groups, the cumulative probability of results availability achieved 59% for university hospitals and 74% for oncologic hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The availability of results of randomized trials in oncology remains limited and almost exclusively through publications, but is higher when cooperative groups are involved.

POLICY SUMMARY

Sponsoring by a cooperative group should become the rule in academic trials to increase availability of trial results.

Results publications are inadequately linked to trial registrations: An automated pipeline and evaluation of German university medical centers

Background/Aims

Informed clinical guidance and health policy relies on clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers finding comprehensive clinical evidence and linking registrations and publications of the same clinical trial. To support the finding and linking of trial evidence, the World Health Organization, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ask researchers to provide the trial registration number in their publication and a reference to the publication in the registration. This practice costs researchers minimal effort and makes evidence synthesis more thorough and efficient. Nevertheless, trial evidence appears inadequately linked, and the extent of trial links in Germany remains unquantified. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate links between registrations and publications across clinical trials conducted by German university medical centers and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Registry. Secondary aims are to develop an automated pipeline that can be applied to other cohorts of trial registrations and publications, and to provide stakeholders, from trialists to registries, with guidance to improve trial links.

Methods

We used automated strategies to download and extract data from trial registries, PubMed, and results publications for a cohort of registered, published trials conducted across German university medical centers and completed between 2009 and 2017. We implemented regular expressions to detect and classify publication identifiers in registrations, and trial registration numbers in publication metadata, abstracts, and full-texts.

Results

In breach of long-standing guidelines, 75% (1,418) of trials failed to reference trial registration numbers in both the abstract and full-text of the journal article in which the results were published. Furthermore, 50% (946) of trial registrations did not contain links to their results publications. Seventeen percent (327) of trials had no links, so that associating registration and publication required manual searching and screening. Overall, trials in ClinicalTrials.gov were better linked than those in the German Clinical Trials Registry; PubMed and registry infrastructures appear to drive this difference. Trial registration numbers were more likely to be transferred to PubMed metadata from abstracts for ClinicalTrials.gov trials than for German Clinical Trials Registry trials. Most (78%, 662/849) ClinicalTrials.gov registrations with a publication link were automatically indexed from PubMed metadata, which is not possible in the German Clinical Trials Registry.

Conclusions

German university medical centers have not comprehensively linked trial registrations and publications, despite established recommendations. This shortcoming threatens the quality of evidence synthesis and medical practice, and burdens researchers with manually searching and linking trial data. Researchers could easily improve this by copy-and-pasting references between their trial registrations and publications. Other stakeholders could build on this practice, for example, PubMed could capture additional trial registration numbers using automated strategies (like those developed in this study), and the German Clinical Trials Registry could automatically index publications from PubMed.

Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Pediatric Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Unique ethical, epidemiological, and economic factors are barriers to performing research in children. The landscape of pediatric clinical trials, including drivers of completion and timely dissemination of results, is not well understood. We aimed to characterize the prevalence of and factors associated with early discontinuation, results reporting, and publication of pediatric clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials enrolling participants <18 years old registered at ClinicalTrials.gov from October 2007 to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to assess the association between trial characteristics and primary outcomes. Publication data were obtained through PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, and Scopus.

RESULTS

Overall, 11.1% trials were stopped early, with recruitment failure being the predominant reason for discontinuation. Only 23.5% of completed trials reported results, and 38.8% were published within 3 years of completion. Rates of discontinuation and publication significantly improved over the study period. Among funding sources, government-sponsored trials (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97) and academic trials (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82) had lower odds of discontinuation compared with industry trials and were more likely to be published (government: aOR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.52-2.48] academic: aOR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.35-1.92). Academic trial investigators were the least likely to report results (aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Early discontinuation and nonreporting/nonpublication of findings remain common in registered pediatric clinical trials and were associated with funding source and other trial features. Targeted efforts are needed to support trial completion and timely results dissemination toward strengthening evidence-based pediatric medicine.

Compliance of Clinical Trial Protocols for Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Consistency between Clinical Trial Registrations and Published Reports

Background: A new type of foods with a health claims notification system, the Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in Japan in April 2015. This cross-sectional study sought to clarify compliance of clinical trial protocols reported as the scientific basis of efficacy in the FFC system. Methods: All articles based on clinical trials published on the Consumer Affairs Agency website from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2021 were reviewed. Items assessed included first author characteristics (for-profit or academia), journal name, year published, journal impact factor in 2020, article language, name of clinical trial registration (CTR), and seven compliance items (Title: T, Participant: P, Intervention: I, Comparison: C, Outcome: O, Study design: S, and Institutional Review Board, IRB). Among studies that conducted CTR, consistency with these seven compliance items was evaluated. Results: Out of 136 studies that met all inclusion criteria, 103 (76%) performed CTR, and CTR was either not performed or not specified for 33 (24%). Compliance between the protocol and the text was high (≥96%) for items P and S, but considerably lower for items T, I, C, O, and IRB (52%, 15%, 13%, 69%, and 27%, respectively). Furthermore, 43% of protocols did not include functional ingredients or food names in items T or I. The total score was 3.7 ± 1.1 pts (out of 7). Conclusions: Some CTs had no protocol registration, and even registered protocols were suboptimal in transparency. In addition to selective reporting, a new problem identified was that the content of the intervention (test food) was intentionally concealed.

Results dissemination from completed clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers remained delayed and incomplete. The 2014-2017 cohort

OBJECTIVE

Timely publication of clinical trial results is central for evidence-based medicine. In this follow-up study we benchmark the performance of German university medical centers (UMCs) regarding timely dissemination of clinical trial results in recent years.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Following the same search and tracking methods used in our previous study for the years 2009 - 2013, we identified trials led by German UMCs completed between 2014 and 2017 and tracked results dissemination for the identified trials.

RESULTS

We identified 1,658 trials in the 2014-2017 cohort. Of these trials, 43% published results as either journal publication or summary results within 24 months after completion date, which is an improvement of 3.8% percentage points compared to the previous study. At the UMC level, the proportion published after 24 months ranged from 14% to 71%. Five years after completion, 30% of the trials still remained unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Despite minor improvements compared to the previously investigated cohort, the proportion of timely reported trials led by German UMCs remains low. German UMCs should take further steps to improve the proportion of timely reported trials.

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study

OBJECTIVE

To examine how and when the results of COVID-19 clinical trials are disseminated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The COVID-19 clinical trial landscape.

PARTICIPANTS

285 registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 completed by 30 June 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall reporting and reporting by dissemination route (ie, by journal article, preprint or results on a registry); time to reporting by dissemination route.

RESULTS

Following automated and manual searches of the COVID-19 literature, we located 41 trials (14%) with results spread across 47 individual results publications published by 15 August 2020. The most common dissemination route was preprints (n=25) followed by journal articles (n=18), and results on a registry (n=2). Of these, four trials were available as both a preprint and journal publication. The cumulative incidence of any reporting surpassed 20% at 119 days from completion. Sensitivity analyses using alternate dates and definitions of results did not appreciably change the reporting percentage. Expanding minimum follow-up time to 3 months increased the overall reporting percentage to 19%.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 trials completed during the first 6 months of the pandemic did not consistently yield rapid results in the literature or on clinical trial registries. Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 response may be seeing quicker results disclosure compared with non-emergency conditions. Issues with the reliability and timeliness of trial registration data may impact our estimates. Ensuring registry data are accurate should be a priority for the research community during a pandemic. Data collection is underway for the next phase of the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials study expanding both our trial population and follow-up time.

The past, present and future of Registered Reports

Registered Reports are a form of empirical publication in which study proposals are peer reviewed and pre-accepted before research is undertaken. By deciding which articles are published based on the question, theory and methods, Registered Reports offer a remedy for a range of reporting and publication biases. Here, we reflect on the history, progress and future prospects of the Registered Reports initiative and offer practical guidance for authors, reviewers and editors. We review early evidence that Registered Reports are working as intended, while at the same time acknowledging that they are not a universal solution for irreproducibility. We also consider how the policies and practices surrounding Registered Reports are changing, or must change in the future, to address limitations and adapt to new challenges. We conclude that Registered Reports are promoting reproducibility, transparency and self-correction across disciplines and may help reshape how society evaluates research and researchers.

Representation of Women in Stroke Clinical Trials: A Review of 281 Trials Involving More Than 500,000 Participants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Women have been underrepresented in cardiovascular disease clinical trials but there is less certainty over the level of disparity specifically in stroke. We examined the participation of women in trials according to stroke prevalence in the population.

METHODS

Published randomized controlled trials with ≥100 participants enrolled between 1990 and 2020 were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. To quantify sex disparities in enrollment, we calculated the participation to prevalence ratio (PPR), defined as the percentage of women participating in a trial vs the prevalence of women in the disease population.

RESULTS

There were 281 stroke trials eligible for analyses with a total of 588,887 participants, of whom 37.4% were women. Overall, women were represented at a lower proportion relative to their prevalence in the underlying population (mean PPR 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.87). The greatest differences were observed in trials of intracerebral hemorrhage (PPR 0.73; 95% CI 0.71-0.74), trials with a mean age of participants <70 years (PPR 0.81; 95% CI 0.78-0.84), nonacute interventions (PPR 0.80; 95% CI 0.76-0.84), and rehabilitation trials (PPR 0.77; 95% CI 0.71-0.83). These findings did not significantly change over the period from 1990 to 2020 (p for trend = 0.201).

DISCUSSION

Women are disproportionately underrepresented in stroke trials relative to the burden of disease in the population. Clear guidance and effective implementation strategies are required to improve the inclusion of women and thus broader knowledge of the impact of interventions in clinical trials.

Proportion of Women and Reporting of Outcomes by Sex in Clinical Trials for Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Women represent two-thirds of patients with Alzheimer disease (AD), and sex differences might affect results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, little information exists on differences in sex as reported in RCTs for AD.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the ratio of females to males and the reporting of sex-stratified data in large pharmaceutical RCTs for AD.

DATA SOURCES

A search for pharmaceutical RCTs for AD was conducted on September 4, 2019, using ClinicalTrials.gov with the key word Alzheimer disease, and articles related to those trials were identified using the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Searches were conducted between September 4 and October 31, 2019, and between April 15 and May 31, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Controlled RCTs that had more than 100 participants and tested the efficacy of drugs or herbal extracts were included. Of 1047 RCTs identified, 409 were published and therefore screened. A total of 77 articles were included in the final analysis, including 56 primary articles on AD, 13 secondary articles on AD, and 8 articles on mild cognitive impairment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The location and date of publication; number, sex, and age of patients enrolled; disease severity; experimental or approved status of the drug; and whether the study included a sex-stratified analysis in the protocol, methods, or results were extracted by 1 reviewer for each article, and the meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were analyzed using a mixed-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The mean proportion of women enrolled in the trials and the associations between prespecified variables were analyzed. The proportion of articles that included sex-stratified results and the temporal trends in the reporting of these results were also studied.

RESULTS

In this review of 56 RCTs for AD involving 39 575 participants, 23 348 women (59.0%) were included. The mean (SD) proportion of women in RCTs of approved drugs was 67.3% (6.9%), and in RCTs of experimental drugs was 57.9% (5.9%). The proportion of women in RCTs of experimental drugs was significantly lower than the proportion of women in the general population with AD in the US (62.1%; difference, -4.56% [95% CI, -6.29% to -2.87%]; P < .001) and Europe (68.2%; difference, -10.67% [95% CI, -12.39% to -8.97%]; P < .001). Trials of approved drugs had a higher probability of including women than trials of experimental drugs (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.52; P = .02). Both the severity of AD at baseline and the trial location were associated with the probability of women being enrolled in trials (severity: OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .02; location in Europe: OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.52; P = .01; location in North America: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93; P = .002). Only 7 articles (12.5%) reported sex-stratified results, with an increasing temporal trend (R, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-0.59; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the proportion of women in RCTs for AD, although higher than the proportion of men, was significantly lower than that in the general population. Only a small proportion of trials reported sex-stratified results. These findings support strategies to improve diversity in enrollment and data reporting in RCTs for AD.

Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT)

Background

Healthcare decisions are ideally based on clinical trial results, published in study registries, as journal articles or summarized in secondary research articles. In this research project, we investigated the impact of academically and commercially sponsored clinical trials on medical practice by measuring the proportion of trials published and cited by systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.

Methods

We examined 691 multicenter, randomized controlled trials that started in 2005 or later and were completed by the end of 2016. To determine whether sponsorship/funding and place of conduct influence a trial’s impact, we created four sub-cohorts of investigator initiated trials (IITs) and industry sponsored trials (ISTs): 120 IITs and 171 ISTs with German contribution compared to 200 IITs and 200 ISTs without German contribution. We balanced the groups for study phase and place of conduct. German IITs were funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), or by another non-commercial research organization. All other trials were drawn from the German Clinical Trials Register or ClinicalTrials.gov. We investigated, to what extent study characteristics were associated with publication and impact using multivariable logistic regressions.

Results

For 80% of the 691 trials, results were published as result articles in a medical journal and/or study registry, 52% were cited by a systematic review, and 26% reached impact in a clinical guideline. Drug trials and larger trials were associated with a higher probability to be published and to have an impact than non-drug trials and smaller trials. Results of IITs were more often published as a journal article while results of ISTs were more often published in study registries. International ISTs less often gained impact by inclusion in systematic reviews or guidelines than IITs.

Conclusion

An encouraging high proportion of the clinical trials were published, and a considerable proportion gained impact on clinical practice. However, there is still room for improvement. For publishing study results, study registries have become an alternative or complement to journal articles, especially for ISTs. IITs funded by governmental bodies in Germany reached an impact that is comparable to international IITs and ISTs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01359-x.

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology.

Evaluation of Oncology Trial Results Reporting Over a 10-Year Period

IMPORTANCE

Unreported clinical trial results represent a violation of human rights. Oncology trials account for nearly 30% of interventional biopharmaceutical clinical studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and are the most numerous among all disciplines.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the reporting of results among all interventional oncology trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007 through 2017.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed all clinical studies registered between June 1, 2007, and May 8, 2017, on ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest public clinical trial registry in the world. Trials with a recruitment status of completed or terminated and a primary completion date of on or before September 30, 2017, were selected. Data were analyzed between February 20, 2021, and February 26, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the percentage of trials that reported results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in journal publications within 24 months of the primary completion date. Journal publication was ascertained by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for a link to the publication, PubMed using national clinical trial number, and Embase using national clinical trial number and filters.

RESULTS

Of the 12 240 clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 7425 trials (60.7%; 95% CI, 60.0%-61.5%) reported results, with a 34.0% (95% CI, 30.3%-37.7%) increase in 24-month reporting rate from 2007 to 2017. Multivariable analyses confirmed that more recent trials (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 per year increase; 95% CI, 1.10-1.13) and trials with larger sample sizes (51-100 patients: adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.24]; >100 patients: adjusted HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.33-1.54]) were more likely to report results. Terminated trials were less likely to report results compared with completed trials (adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93). Compared with trials funded by industry, those funded by the National Institutes of Health were more likely to report results (adjusted HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.29-1.49), whereas those funded by other academic or nonprofit organizations were less likely to report results (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.70). Among all 7425 trials, the results of 2807 trials (37.8%; 95% CI, 36.7%-38.9%) were posted only on ClinicalTrials.gov. These trials tended to be terminated early and to have small sample sizes (≤50 patients) compared with trials that published results in journals.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found a gradual improvement in results reporting among oncology trials over a 10-year period. Trial registries could serve as a results reporting platform for unpublished trials and as a data source of trial outcomes for future studies.

Facilitated transition in HIV drug trial closure: A conceptual model for HIV post-trial care

Within the HIV clinical trial field, there are gaps in existing ethical regulations in relation to post-trial care. There is need to develop post-trial care guidelines that are flexible and sensitive to local contexts and to the specific needs of different groups of participants, particularly in low income contexts. Evidence regarding HIV trial closure and post-trial care is required to underpin the development of appropriate policies in this area. This article reports research from Uganda that develops a new model of ‘Facilitated Transition’ to conceptualize the transition process of HIV positive trial participants from ‘research’ to ‘usual care’ health facilities after trial conclusion. This was a qualitative grounded theory study that included 21 adult HIV positive post-trial participants and 22 research staff, undertaken between October 2014 and August 2015. The findings showed that trial closure is a complex process for HIV positive participants which includes three phases: the pre-closure, trial-closure, and post-trial phases. The model highlights a range of different needs of research participants and suggests specific and person-centred interventions that can be delivered at different phases with the aim of improving health outcomes and experiences for trial participants in low income settings during trial closure. Further research needs to be done to verify the model in other contexts and for other conditions.

Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics

IMPORTANCE

Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8.

RESULTS

From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.

Evolving landscape and academic attitudes toward the controversies of global immuno-oncology trials

This cross‐sectional and longitudinal descriptive analysis aimed to track the evolving landscape of global immuno‐oncology (IO) trials and provide insight into the resolution of IO‐related controversies. Clinical trials (n = 4510) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007 to 2019 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer (ACT), cancer vaccines and immune modulators were included. Most of IO trials are Phase 2 and focus on ICIs and multiple IO therapies. The United States leads global IO research, with stable growth and the best methodological quality. Mainland China ranks first in the number of ACT trials but has the lowest article publication rate (6.2%). A multiple‐arm comparative design is often adopted in multiple IO therapies trials (44.0%). Trials studying ICIs and multiple IO therapies are likely to use early registration (80.0% and 86.6%) and stringent corticosteroid‐/infection‐related criteria. Hospitals have provided the most extensive and strongest support for all IO categories. Big pharma prefers to fund Phase 3‐4 ICI trials (6.98%), while small pharma has a wider sponsorship favoring Phase 1‐2 trials. The “partial‐use‐of‐corticosteroids” strategy is generally well accepted in ICI trials with a definitive trend (32.5%; P < .001) but is associated with the poor dissemination of results (P ≤ .020), while the complete disclosure and standardization of dose/timing limits are still lacking. Disparities in design features and dissemination of results are widespread in IO trials and are modulated by IO category, cancer type and sponsor. We propose policy reforms to redefine the timely publication of IO trials and standardize the resolution of corticosteroid‐/infection‐related issues.

What's new?

In recent decades, immunotherapy has emerged and advanced to become a key part of cancer‐fighting strategies. The rapid growth of immuno‐oncology, however, has been accompanied by controversy in suitable interventions and trial design. In this cross‐sectional and longitudinal analysis, disparities in design were found to be common in immuno‐oncology trials, with differences influenced by factors such as cancer type and trial sponsor. Trials with strict limitations on corticosteroid use had significantly higher publications rates than trials permitting partial corticosteroid administration. The data further suggest that timely publication of immuno‐oncology trials is the third year after trial completion.

Induction of Efficacy Expectancies in an Ambulatory Smartphone-Based Digital Placebo Mental Health Intervention: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

There is certain evidence on the efficacy of smartphone-based mental health interventions. However, the mechanisms of action remain unclear. Placebo effects contribute to the efficacy of face-to-face mental health interventions and may also be a potential mechanism of action in smartphone-based interventions.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate whether different types of efficacy expectancies as potential factors underlying placebo effects could be successfully induced in a smartphone-based digital placebo mental health intervention, ostensibly targeting mood and stress.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, controlled, single-blinded, superiority trial with a multi-arm parallel design. Participants underwent an Android smartphone-based digital placebo mental health intervention for 20 days. We induced prospective efficacy expectancies via initial instructions on the purpose of the intervention and retrospective efficacy expectancies via feedback on the success of the intervention at days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13. A total of 132 healthy participants were randomized to a prospective expectancy–only condition (n=33), a retrospective expectancy–only condition (n=33), a combined expectancy condition (n=34), or a control condition (n=32). As the endpoint, we assessed changes in efficacy expectancies with the Credibility Expectancy Questionnaire, before the intervention and on days 1, 7, 14, and 20. For statistical analyses, we used a random effects model for the intention-to-treat sample, with intervention day as time variable and condition as two factors: prospective expectancy (yes vs no) and retrospective expectancy (yes vs no), allowed to vary over participant and intervention day.

Results

Credibility (β=−1.63; 95% CI −2.37 to −0.89; P<.001) and expectancy (β=−0.77; 95% CI −1.49 to −0.05; P=.04) decreased across the intervention days. For credibility and expectancy, we found significant three-way interactions: intervention day×prospective expectancy×retrospective expectancy (credibility: β=2.05; 95% CI 0.60-3.50; P=.006; expectancy: β=1.55; 95% CI 0.14-2.95; P=.03), suggesting that efficacy expectancies decreased least in the combined expectancy condition and the control condition.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study investigating whether efficacy expectancies can be successfully induced in a specifically designed placebo smartphone-based mental health intervention. Our findings may pave the way to diminish or exploit digital placebo effects and help to improve the efficacy of digital mental health interventions.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02365220; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02365220.

Influence of Clinical Trials of Acute Coronary Syndrome Beyond the Primary Hypothesis: A Systematic Review

Importance

Conducting a clinical trial involves significant risks, time, and resources. The return on investment for these trials, measured by advancing health care and contributions to the scientific literature, is often uncertain.

Objective

To assess the long-term effects of major clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes contemporary to the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial, which did not achieve its primary objective.

Evidence Review

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database was screened for clinical trials of acute coronary syndromes (including unstable angina, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction) with more than 1000 participants and primary results published between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009, in Circulation, European Heart Journal, JAMA, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. For identified trials, bibliographic information, citations, trial name, registration, inclusion diagnosis, intervention type, sample size, primary outcome result, sponsor information, and academic involvement were extracted. To identify secondary analyses, bibliographic information for citing articles, their citations, and their abstracts were extracted. Clinical practice guideline bibliographies for citations of trial publications were reviewed, and the class and level of evidence of resulting recommendations were extracted.

Findings

Of 784 records screened, 30 were primary publications of 25 clinical trials. Through December 31, 2018, these trials were cited a median of 497 times (interquartile range [IQR], 424-931 citations). Trials that did not achieve their primary objective had fewer primary citations (the number of times that each published journal article with the primary [main] results of a trial was cited) (median, 443 [IQR, 396-468] vs 868 [IQR, 645-1774] citations, P = .006). The frequency of secondary analyses peaked within 5 years of the primary trial at 643. Trials that did not achieve the primary objective had fewer secondary analyses (median, 15 [IQR, 5-31] vs 18 [IQR, 10-43] analyses, P = .44) that were not cited significantly less often (median, 484 [IQR, 191-1299] vs 1124 [IQR, 410-4283] citations, P = .16). All trials were cited by at least 1 clinical practice guideline.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review found that trials that achieved the primary objective were frequently cited. Secondary research activity did not differ by primary result, and the primary trials and secondary analyses contributed to clinical practice recommendations. These data show the long-term importance of clinical trials regardless of primary outcome result.

Publication and associated factors of clinical trials registered in Peru

OBJECTIVE

We aim to determine the percentage of publication and its associated factors of clinical trials (CTs) registered in Peru.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, we assessed CTs registered at the CT's Peruvian Registry (REPEC) during the 2011-2016 period, and evaluated its percentage of publication and associated factors. We used a bibliographic search algorithm to determine if the CTs were published and assessed the associated factors by using a Cox regression to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) as the magnitude of association of interest.

RESULTS

We analyzed 228 CTs, of which 63% were published. The regression analysis identified the year of registration (aHR 2012 = 1.15 [0.58-2.27]; aHR 2013 = 0.45 [0.21-0.95]; aHR 2014 = 0.89 [0.43-1.82]; aHR 2015-2016 = 0.16 [0.05-0.58]), total number of participants (aHR = 1.12; 1.05-1.18), and phase III-IV (aHR = 2.15; 0.1.16-4.03) as factors associated with the publication of the CTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The percentage of publication of CTs executed in Peru is insufficient, and it increases the older the year of its registration in the REPEC, mayor of the number of participating countries, and if it is a phase III or IV study.

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects

BACKGROUND

Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs.

DISCUSSION

The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

Study design, result posting and publication of late-stage cardiovascular trials

AIMS

Pre-registration of study protocols in accessible databases is required for publication of study results in high-impact medical journals. Nonetheless, data on characteristics of clinical trials registered in these databases and their outcome, in terms of result reporting and publication are limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched for interventional, late-phase cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies in adults registered in Clinicaltrials.gov. first posted after 1/1/2013 and completed up to 31/12/2018. Data on study design, result reporting and publication were collected, and potential associations with a pre-defined set of explanatory factors were examined.In total, 250 CVD trials were included in the analysis. Of these, 193 (77.2%) were randomized studies, 99 (39.6%) open label designs, and 126 (50.4%) had industry as main sponsor. 179 trials (71.6%) evaluated the effect of drugs and 27 (10.8%) evaluated devices. The most common primary outcomes were non-clinical endpoints (76.0%), with only 17% of studies evaluating clinical endpoints. Industry-funded trials focused on patent-protected drugs and devices more often than non-industry-funded trials (72.0% vs. 30.6%, P < 0.001 and 55.0% vs. 26.3%, P = 0.033, respectively). Sixty three studies (25.2%) had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov, and 116 (46.4%) had results published in the scientific literature. In multivariate analysis, industry sponsorship was statistically significantly associated with results posting (OR: 3.38; 95% CI: 1.56-7.30, P = 0.002) and publication (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.23-0.75, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

Among late-stage cardiovascular trials only 1/4 had results posted on clinicaltrials.gov and <50% had results published. Industry sponsors were more likely to invest in research on patent-protected drugs and devices than were non-industry sponsors. Industry-sponsored studies were more likely to have their results posted, but less likely to have their results published in the scientific literature.

Clinical Trial Outcomes in Urology: Assessing Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting and Publication in ClinicalTrials.Gov Registrations 2007-2019

PURPOSE

Clinical trials require significant resources, but benefits are only realized after trial completion and dissemination of results. We comprehensively assessed early discontinuation, registry results reporting, and publication by trial sponsor and subspecialty in urology trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We assessed trial registrations from 2007 to 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication data from PubMed®/MEDLINE®. Associations between sponsor or subspecialty with early discontinuation were assessed using Cox proportional hazards and results reporting or publication with logistic regression at 3 years after completion.

RESULTS

Of 8,636 trials 3,541 (41.0%) were completed and 999 (11.6%) were discontinued. Of completed trials 26.9% reported results and 21.6% were published. Sponsors included academic institutions (53.1%), industry (37.1%) and the U.S. government (9.8%). Academic-sponsored (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, p=0.012) and government-sponsored trials (adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.78, p <0.001) were less likely than industry to discontinue early. Government-sponsored trials were more likely to report (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17-2.54, p=0.006) and publish (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.23-2.89, p=0.004). Academic-sponsored trials were less likely to report (adjusted OR 0.65, CI:0.48-0.88, p=0.006) but more likely to publish (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.25-2.37, p <0.001). These outcomes were similar across subspecialties. However, endourology was more likely to discontinue early (adjusted HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.53-2.95, p <0.001), general urology was more likely to report results (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.13-2.11, p=0.006) and andrology was less likely to publish (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.81, p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Sponsor type is significantly associated with trial completion and dissemination. Government-sponsored trials had the best performance, while industry and academic-sponsored trials lagged in completion and results reporting, respectively. Subspecialty played a lesser role. Lack of dissemination remains a problem for urology trials.

Female under-representation in sepsis studies: a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess female representation in primary studies underpinning recommendations from clinical guidelines and systematic reviews for sepsis treatment in adults.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a bibliometric study. We removed studies pertaining to sex-specific diseases and included quasirandomized, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and observational studies. We analyzed the female participation-to-prevalence ratio (PPR).

RESULTS

We included 277 studies published between 1973 and 2017. For the 246 studies for which sex data were available, the share of female participation was 40%. Females overall were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR 0.78). Disaggregated results were reported by sex in 57 studies. In univariate analyses, non-intensive care unit setting and consideration of other social health determinants were significantly associated with greater female participation (P < 0.001 and P = 0.023, respectively). In regression models, studies published in 1996 or later were likely to report sex, while RCTs were unlikely to do so (P = 0.019 and P < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our study points to female underenrollment in sepsis studies. Primary studies underpinning recommendations for sepsis have poorly reported their findings by sex.

National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

Background: The COVID 19 pandemic increased publication productivity enormously with numerous new COVID-19-related articles appearing daily, despite the fact that many health care workers in the partially overburdened national health care systems were faced with major challenges. Methods: In a cross-sectional, observational, retrospective study we compared and correlated 17 epidemiologic, health care system-related and health-economic factors from medical databases and intergovernmental organisations potentially influencing the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publication productivity between 1 January and 30 April 2020 amongst the 30 countries most severely affected by the pandemic. These factors were additionally correlated with the national pre-COVID-19 publication rate for the same pre-year period to identify potential changes in the general publication behaviour. Findings: COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 publication rates correlated strongest with access to and quality of health care (ρ = 0.80 and 0.87, p < 0.0001), COVID-19 cases per capita (ρ = 0.78 and 0.72, p < 0.0001), GDP per capita (ρ = 0.69 and 0.76, p < 0.0001), health spending per capita (ρ = 0.61 and 0.73, p < 0.0001) and the pre-COVID-19 Hirsch-Index (ρ = 0.61 and 0.62, p = 0.002 and <0.0001). Ratios of publication rates for “Cancer”, “Diabetes” and “Stroke” in 2020 versus the pre-year period were 0.88 ± 0.06, 1.02 ± 0.18 and 0.9 ± 0.20, resulting in a pooled ratio of 0.93 ± 0.06 for non-COVID-19 publications. Interpretation: There are marked geographic and national differences in publication productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Both COVID-19- and non-COVID-19 publication productivity correlates with epidemiologic, health care system-related and healtheconomic factors, and pre-COVID publication expertise. Countries with a stable scientific infrastructure appear to maintain non-COVID-19 publication productivity nearly at the pre-year level and at the same time use their resilience to produce COVID-19 publications at high rates.

Characteristics of Drug Intervention Clinical Trials and Scientific Impact of the Trial Outcome: A Bibliometric Analysis Using the Relative Citation Ratio in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer from 2007 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of clinical trials have been conducted, the types of clinical trials that are scientifically influential, frequently utilized by society, and contribute to the progress of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have not been studied. Thus, we aimed to investigate the relationship between the characteristics of clinical trials and the scientific impact of the outcome in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by performing a bibliometric analysis using relative citation ratio (RCR), a newly developed bibliometric index by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

METHODS

Primary publications of drug intervention clinical trials for NSCLC between 2007 and 2016 were included in the study. The characteristics of clinical trials were compared among four RCR categories with 50 trials in each [LOW50, 50 NIH percentile (50NIH%ile), 95 NIH percentile (95NIH%ile), and TOP50], totaling to 200 trials.

RESULTS

Median RCRs of LOW50, 50NIH%ile, 95NIH%ile, and TOP50 were 0.03, 1.00, 5.76, and 26.89, respectively. Publications of Phase 3, randomized, blinded, for-profit-company supported/sponsored, multi-center trials, and trials with a larger number of subjects were shown to have a higher scientific impact. Publications of clinical trials of newly developed molecular target drugs, including epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors demonstrated a higher scientific impact than those of traditional chemotherapies.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials designed to have a high evidence level would improve the scientific impact of the outcome, and novel interventions would be another factor to improve the clinical trials' influence.

Trends in mental health clinical research: Characterizing the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from 2007-2018

While the epidemiologic burden of mental health disorders in the United States has been well described over the past decade, we know relatively little about trends in how these disorders are being studied through clinical research. We examined all US interventional mental health trials submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov between October 1, 2007 and April 30, 2018 to identify trends in trial characteristics, comparisons with non-mental health trials, and trial attributes associated with discontinuation and results reporting. International data were excluded to minimize potential confounding. Over this period, mental health and non-mental health trials grew at similar rates, though Industry and US government-funded trials declined and academic medical center/hospital/other (AMC/Hosp/Oth) funded trials grew faster in mental health research. The proportion of trials with safeguards against bias, including blinding and oversight by data monitoring committees (DMCs), decreased. This occurred during growth in the proportion of trials studying behavioral and non-pharmacological interventions, which often cannot be blinded and do not require DMC oversight. There was concurrent decline in pharmaceutical trials. There was significant growth in trials studying Non-DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5) conditions (e.g. suicidality and wellness), as well as substance use, anxiety, and neurocognitive disorders. One in 12 trials was discontinued. Trial discontinuation was associated with industry and AMC/Hosp/Oth funders, pharmaceutical interventions, and lack of DMC oversight. Only 29.9% of completed trials reported results to the registry. Decreased results reporting was associated with behavioral interventions, phase 1 trials, and industry and AMC/Hosp/Oth funders. The main implications of these data are that funding is shifting away from traditional government and industry sources, there is increasing interest in non-pharmacological treatments and Non-DSM conditions, and there are changing norms in trial design characteristics regarding safeguards against bias. These trends can guide researchers and funding bodies when considering the trajectory of future mental health research.

Low dissemination rates, non-transparency of trial premature cessation and late registration in child mental health: observational study of registered interventional trials

The aim of this observational study was to explore trial premature cessation, non-publication and trial registration time in child mental health. Data were extracted for "closed" trials in Clinicaltrials.gov registry and European Union Clinical Trial Register (EUCTR) and corresponding publications of completed trials indexed in three data bases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar). We restricted the extraction to the 'Behaviours and Mental Disorders' category and participants' age of 0-17 years. Outcome measures were trial completion, results reporting within a year after the trial completion, publishing an article in a peer-reviewed journal within an average time to publish (729 days), and registration time. The number of EUCTR trials was relatively small (n = 35) and with many inconsistencies. Out of 827 "closed" trials extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov, 69% were completed, 24.2% of prematurely ceased trials did not report reasons for early termination, 12.2% of the completed trials had results reported within a year, and 29.3% had an article published within 24 months after completion. Middle-sized (100-499 participants) and behavioural trials had higher chances of being successfully completed. Middle-sized and industry-funded trials were associated with results reporting. Chances for publishing an article were lower for industry-funded trials. Industry funding and drug interventions were related to timely registration. Large sample and non-industry funding were related to retrospective registration, which was recorded more often in recent years than before (we observed trials registered from 2002 until 2017). This study found low dissemination rates in the field of child mental health, with worrying under-reporting of premature termination causes. These findings indicate that more children are being subjected to unnecessary risk that comes with trial participation.

From registration to publication: A study on Dutch academic randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Registration of clinical trials has been initiated in order to assess adherence of the reported results to the original trial protocol. This study aimed to investigate the publication rates, timely dissemination of results, and the prevalence of consistency in hypothesis, sample size, and primary endpoint of Dutch investigator-initiated randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

All Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs with a completion date between December 31, 2010, and January 1, 2012, and registered in the Trial Register of The Netherlands database were included. PubMed was searched for the publication of these RCT results until September 2016, and the time to the publication date was calculated. Consistency in hypothesis, sample size, and primary endpoint compared with the registry data were assessed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in a total of 168 Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs. In September 2016, the results of 129 (77%) trials had been published, of which 50 (39%) within 2 years after completion of accrual. Consistency in hypothesis with the original protocol was observed in 108 (84%) RCTs; in 71 trials (55%), the planned sample size was reached; and 103 trials (80%) presented the original primary endpoint. Consistency in all three parameters was observed in 50 studies (39%).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that approximately one out of four Dutch investigator-initiated RCTs remains unpublished 5 years after initiation. The observed low overall consistency with the initial study outline is a matter of concern and warrants improvements in trial design and assessment of trial feasibility.