Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013

The long-term impact of vaccine clinical research on national stakeholders involved: Experience from a low-income Country

Clinical trials are the most rigorous scientific and regulated method to investigate the safety and efficacy of vaccines or drugs in pre-licensure stage. Clinical trial design and implementation are complex, time-consuming and involves close engagement with country's regulatory authority, clinical trial sites, investigators, and the healthcare system. Over the past few decades, a significant number of clinical trials have been conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in resource-limited settings. Conducting clinical research in LMICs leads to significant capacity building in terms of training and infrastructure, which adds to the improvement in overall public health benefits of the country. Here, we describe the advances in local capacities, infrastructure and healthcare system following the implementation of clinical trials with the contribution of the International Vaccine Institute at different trial sites in Nepal from 2017 to 2024 in urban, semi-urban, and rural settings. We highlight how, in addition to achieving the study-specific objectives, this experience has built local scientific, ethical, and regulatory oversight capabilities and physical infrastructure. Such positive experiences will provide additional rationale for health research organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and funders to engage in the implementation of further vaccine clinical research with LMICs which bear a heavy burden of infectious diseases.

Augmenting clinical trials in asthma through digital technology, decentralised designs, and person-centric endpoints: opportunities and challenges

Digital technologies (eg, smart inhalers, wearables, and sensors) allow for remote, objective, granular, and non-invasive data collection, making them attractive for research evaluating interventions in airways diseases with variable trajectories, such as asthma. Such technologies offer the opportunity to move towards decentralised clinical trials that are done partly or fully outside the classic clinical trial setting and are characterised by remote data collection and monitoring. This approach to evaluating clinical, pharmacological, or behavioural interventions could facilitate recruitment of inclusive and generalisable study populations, enhance personalisation and sustainability, reduce research costs, and accelerate the timeline to novel asthma treatments' market access. This Personal View discusses the application of digital technologies and endpoints within trials; the concept of hybrid and decentralised designs; describes a fully decentralised trial in asthma; and explores the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats regarding their implementation from the clinician, patient expert, low-resource, and regulator viewpoints.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) trials: A cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials registries

Every clinical trial must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry before enrollment of the first participant. Prospectively registering clinical trials before enrolling participants helps to prevent unethical research misconduct from occurring, duplication of research and increases transparency in research. The aim of this study was to provide cross-sectional survey analysis of planned, ongoing and completed human papillomavirus (HPV) clinical trials conducted worldwide. We searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTR) for registered HPV trials on 5 March 2023. Two authors independently extracted data including name of the clinical trial registry, location of the trial, recruitment status of the trial, gender of participants, phase of the trial, and type of trial sponsor. We used Microsoft Excel to perform descriptive analysis. The search yielded 1632 trials registered between 1999 and 2023. Most of the trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and were registered retrospectively. We also found that most trials were conducted in North America, in recruiting stage, and indicated "not applicable" under the phase of the trial field. Finally, most trials were sponsored by hospitals. Our study found that there are many HPV clinical trials registered in different clinical trial primary registries around the world. However, many of the trials were registered retrospectively instead of the required prospectively and some had missing fields. Therefore, there is a need for registries to promote prospective trial registration and completion of all fields during the registration process.

Discordant Information on Blinding in Trial Registries and Published Research: A Systematic Review

Importance

Blinding of individuals involved in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can be used to protect against performance and biases, but discrepancies in the reporting of methodological features between registered protocols and subsequent trial publications may lead to inconsistencies, thereby reintroducing bias.

Objective

To investigate inconsistency in blinding as reported in trial registries and publications.

Data Sources

An exploratory dataset and a validation dataset were created. The exploratory dataset consisted of RCTs included in systematic reviews of adverse events from the SMART Safety database published between January 1, 2015, to January 1, 2020. The validation dataset was based on a literature search on PubMed for all registered RCTs published within the same time frame.

Study Selection

Eligible RCTs for the exploratory dataset included were those that specified drug safety as the exclusive outcome and included at least 1 pairwise meta-analysis involving 5 or more RCTs of health care interventions. The validation dataset included a random selection of RCTs without restriction on outcome.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines were followed during data extraction. RCTs were matched to their registries and information on blinding was extracted from both the journal publication and trial registry. Extraction was performed by 1 author and cross-checked by 2 additional authors, with discrepancies resolved via consensus. The data analysis was conducted between July 2023 and January 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was inconsistency in blinding reports in the publication and the associated trial registry. Factors associated with the inconsistency were further investigated using multivariable logistic regression. The results were then compared with the validation dataset.

Results

A total of 1340 RCTs were included, with a median (IQR) sample size of 338 (152-772) participants. Of these, 749 (55.90%) were multiregional, 1220 (91.04%) were multicenter, and 835 (62.31%) were prospectively registered. The most frequently studied condition was cancer, representing 472 trials (35.22%). In the exploratory dataset, 1080 trials (80.60%) had inconsistent reporting of blinding in their published trial registry. Higher odds of inconsistency were associated with trials conducted as single-center (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.24-7.74; P = .02) or those focused on cancer (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 2.04-5.38; P < .001). Evaluation of the 98 RCTs in the validation dataset revealed that 70 (71.43%) had inconsistencies between the published trial and its registries. The occurrence of inconsistencies was significantly higher in the exploratory dataset than the validation dataset (P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of RCTs, there were significant inconsistencies in the reporting of blinding between trial publications and their corresponding registries. These findings underscore the importance of maintaining consistency between registered protocols and published trial reports to ensure methodological transparency and minimize bias.

Prospective registration of trials: where we are, why, and how we could get better

OBJECTIVES

Transparent trial conduct requires prospective registration of a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) before the enrollment of the first participant. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of RCTs that are prospectively registered and analyze the time trends and factors linked to registration timing and (2) assess the reasons for nonadherence to prospective registration and explore ways to improve compliance. We studied trials published in rheumatology as a case study.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched for RCTs in rheumatology published between 2009 and 2022. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with prospective trial registration. We sent a survey to investigators of trials not prospectively registered, asking about reasons for nonadherence and potential solutions.

RESULTS

We identified 1093 RCTs; 453 (41.4%) were not prospectively registered. Of these, 130 (11.9%) were not registered and 323 (29.5%) were retrospectively registered. Prospective registration increased by 3% annually (P < .001), with 13.3% (2 of 15) trials registered in 2009 to 73.2% (112 of 153) in 2022. In journals supporting the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors recommendations, 16% of trials published in 2022 were not prospectively registered. Prospective registration was associated with a larger sample size, multinational recruitment, and publication in higher impact journals. Investigators reported lack of knowledge or organizational problems as key reasons for retrospective registration. They suggested linking ethical approval to trial registration to ensure prospective registration.

CONCLUSION

Despite significant improvement, adherence to prospective registration remains unsatisfactory in rheumatology. Targeted strategies for journal editors, health-care professionals, and researchers may help improve trial registration.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Randomized controlled clinical trials are a research type where people are randomly assigned to different treatments to see which works best. These treatments can include drugs, surgery, medical devices, or changes in behavior. The results obtained in RCTs are essential for the advance of medicine and for making medical decisions. Randomized controlled clinical trials need to be conducted in a transparent way to provide trustworthy information and avoid misleading findings. A key aspect of transparency is registering the study details and plan in a public repository before the trial starts. This not only requires researchers to plan their study in advance but also enables the scientific community to track any change in how the study is conducted. Although registration of RCTs is recommended, it is not compulsory. Questions remain about researchers' compliance with prospective registration, and the factors that may affect it. In the present study, we systematically studied the registration practices of rheumatology RCTs published between 2009 and 2022. We reviewed how the trials were registered and used a statistical method (multivariable logistic regression) to determine what factors were linked to whether a trial was registered before it started. We also sent a questionnaire to researchers who either did not register or retrospectively registered their study, asking for their suggestions on how to improve adherence to proper registration practices. We found 1093 trials, of which 453 (41.4%) were not registered before they started. Among these, 130 (11.9%) were never registered and 323 (29.5%) were retrospectively registered. Trials with a larger number of participants, those involving recruiting centers from multiple countries, and those published in more prestigious journals were more likely to be registered in advance and adhere to transparency recommendations. Researchers who did not register their trial before it started reported that lack of awareness and organizational issues as the main reasons for not following these recommendations. They suggested that connecting ethical approval to trial registration could be a solution for ensuring adequate registration. We found that even though trial registration has improved in recent years, a considerable number of rheumatology trials are still not registered before they start. Based on our findings, we think that focusing on strategies for journal editors, health-care professionals, and researchers could help increase the number of properly registered trials.

Endometrial cancer survival in populations of African descent

To examine whether the endometrial cancer (EC) survival disadvantage among Black populations is US-specific, a comparison between African-descent populations from different countries with a high development index is warranted. We analyzed 28 213 EC cases from cancer registries in Florida (2005-2018) and the French Caribbean islands of Martinique (2005-2018) and Guadeloupe (2008-2018) combined. Kaplan-Meier and all-cause Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival. Models were stratified by EC histology type and the main predictor examined was race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White [NHW] and no-Hispanic Black [NHB] women in the United States versus Black women residing in the Caribbean). For endometrioid and nonendometrioid EC, after adjusting for age, histology, stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgery, period of diagnosis, and poverty level, US NHB women and Caribbean Black women had a higher risk of death relative to US NHW women. There was no difference between US NHB and Caribbean Black women (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88-1.30) with endometrioid EC. However, Caribbean Black women with nonendometrioid carcinomas had a 40% higher risk of death (HR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.13-1.74) than US NHB women. The low EC survival among US Black women extends to foreign populations of African descent. For the aggressive nonendometrioid ECs, survival among Caribbean Black women outside of the United States is considerably worse. This article is part of a Special Collection on Gynecological Cancers.

Collecting and reporting adverse events in low-income settings-perspectives from vaccine trials in the Gambia

BACKGROUND

Despite Africa's significant infectious disease burden, it is underrepresented in global vaccine clinical trials. While this trend is slowly reversing, it is important to recognize and mitigate the challenges that arise when conducting vaccine clinical trials in this environment. These challenges stem from a variety of factors peculiar to the population and may negatively impact adverse event collection and reporting if not properly addressed.

METHODS

As a team of clinical researchers working within the MRCG (Medical Research Council Unit The Gambia), we have conducted 12 phase 1 to 3 vaccine trials over the past 10 years. In this article, we discuss the challenges we face and the strategies we have developed to improve the collection and reporting of adverse events in low-income settings.

OUTCOME

Healthcare-seeking behaviors in the Gambia are influenced by spiritual and cultural beliefs as well as barriers to accessing orthodox healthcare; participants in trials may resort to non-orthodox care, reducing the accuracy of reported adverse events. To address this, trial eligibility criteria prohibit self-treatment and herbal product use during trials. Instead, round-the-clock care is provided to trial participants, facilitating safety follow-up. Constraints in the healthcare system in the Gambia such as limitations in diagnostic tools limit the specificity of diagnosis when reporting adverse events. To overcome these challenges, the Medical Research Council Unit maintains a Clinical Services Department, offering medical care and diagnostic services to study participants. Sociocultural factors, including low literacy rates and social influences, impact adverse event collection. Solicited adverse events are collected during home visits on paper-based or electronic report forms. Community engagement meetings are held before each study starts to inform community stakeholders about the study and answer any questions they may have. These meetings ensure that influential members of the community understand the purpose of the study and the risks and benefits of participating in the trial. This understanding makes them more likely to support participation within their communities.

CONCLUSION

Conducting ethical vaccine clinical trials in resource-limited settings requires strategies to accurately collect and report adverse events. Our experiences from the Gambia offer insights into adverse event collection in these settings.

A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study

Background/Objectives: In osteopathy, it becomes necessary to produce high-quality evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. The aim of this meta-research study is to assess the reporting quality of RCTs published in the osteopathic field. Methods: The protocol was preliminarily registered on the "Open Science Framework (OSF)" website. For reporting, we considered the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We included all the RCTs, published between 2011 and 2023, investigating the effectiveness of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) in any possible condition. The search process was conducted on four major biomedical databases including PubMed, Central, Scopus and Embase. A data extraction form was implemented to collect all relevant information. The completeness of reporting was calculated as the percentage of adherence to the CONSORT checklist; the Cochrane ROB 2 tool was considered to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the following five major domains: randomization (D1), interventions (D2), missing data (D3), outcome measurement (D4), selective reporting (D5). Results: A total of 131 studies were included and the overall adherence was 57%, with the worst section being "other information" (42%). Studies with a lower RoB showed higher adherence to the CONSORT. The "results" section presented the highest differences as follows: D1 (-36.7%), D2 (-27.2%), D3 (-21.5%) and D5 (-25.5%). Significant correlations were also found between the preliminary protocol registration, higher journal quartile, publication in hybrid journals and the completeness of reporting (β: 19.22, CI: 14.45-24.00, p < 0.001; β: 5.41; CI: 2.80-8.02, p ≤ 0.001; β: 5.64, CI: 1.06-10.23, p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusions: The adherence to the CONSORT checklist in osteopathic RCTs is lacking. An association was found between a lower completeness of reporting and a higher RoB, a good journal ranking, publication in hybrid journals and a prospective protocol registration. Journals and authors should adopt all the strategies to adhere to reporting guidelines to guarantee generalization of the results arising from RCTs.

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste

An estimated 82-89% of ecological research and 85% of medical research has limited or no value to the end user because of various inefficiencies. We argue that registration and registered reports can enhance the quality and impact of ecological research. Drawing on evidence from other fields, chiefly medicine, we support our claim that registration can reduce research waste. However, increasing registration rates, quality and impact will be very slow without coordinated effort of funders, publishers and research institutions. We therefore call on them to facilitate the adoption of registration by providing adequate support. We outline several aspects to be considered when designing a registration system that would best serve the field of ecology. To further inform the development of such a system, we call for more research to identify the causes of low registration rates in ecology. We suggest short- and long-term actions to bolster registration and reduce research waste.

Characterization of clinical trials in Ecuador and their association with disease burden: Are there research gaps?

This study offers a detailed analysis of clinical trials conducted in Ecuador from 2010 to 2022 to assess alignment with the country's disease burden as indicated by the Global Burden of Disease study. Utilizing data from five registries, including ARCSA and Clinicaltrials.gov, we analyzed characteristics and coverage of 75 CTs after removing duplicates and ineligible studies. Findings reveal a 50% research gap across disease groups, with neoplasms being the only category matching disease burden. The scarcity of clinical research highlights the disparity between CTs and prevalent diseases such as cardiovascular and kidney diseases, diabetes, and other non-communicable conditions. Our results underscore the urgent need for increased clinical research investment addressing these critical health challenges in Ecuador.

Updates in global oncology: Advancements and future directions

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, and low- and middle-income countries bear most of the disease burden. While cancer is increasingly recognized as a major global health issue, more work remains. Understanding the status of global cancer care will shape the next steps in ensuring equitable global access to cancer care. This article highlights ongoing initiatives in global oncology and the next steps in advancing the field.

Practical Guidelines for Standardised Resolution of Important Protocol Deviations in Clinical Trials Conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa

A clinical trial is any research on human subjects that involves an investigational medicinal product or device. Investigational medicinal products include unlicensed drugs or drugs used outside the product license (e.g. for a new indication) (ICH-GCP). As per the internationally accepted ICH-GCP guidelines, clinical trials should be conducted strictly per the approved protocol. However, during the lifecycle of a trial, protocol deviations may occur. Under ICH efficacy guidelines, protocol deviations are divided into non-important (minor) or important (major), and the latter can jeopardise the participant's rights, safety or the quality of data generated by the study. Existing guidelines on protocol deviation management do not detail or standardise actions to be taken for participants, investigational products, data or samples as part of a holistic management of important protocol deviations. Herein, we propose guidelines to address the current literature gap and promote the standardisation of actions to address important protocol deviations in clinical trials. The advised actions should complement the existing local institutional review board and national regulatory authority requirements.

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructions for authors of rheumatology journals and analyze their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Sixty rheumatology journals were selected by a research librarian and an investigator through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The instructions for authors' subsection of each journal was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Of the 58 journals analyzed, 34 (34/58; 59%) mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online compendium of best practice reporting guidelines. The most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines were CONSORT with 44 journals (44/58; 75%), and PRISMA with 35 journals (35/58; 60%). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM with 56 journals not mentioning the guideline (56/58; 97%), and SRQR with 53 journals not mentioning the guideline (53/57, 93%). Clinical trial registration was required by 38 journals (38/58; 66%) and recommended by 8 journals (8/58; 14%). Our study found that endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration within rheumatology journals was suboptimal with great room for improvement. Endorsement of reporting guidelines have shown to not only mitigate bias, but also improve research methodologies. Therefore, we recommend rheumatology journals broadly expand their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration to improve the quality of evidence they publish.

Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether clinical trial register (CTR) searches can accurately identify a greater number of completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) than electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches for systematic reviews of interventions, and to quantify the number of eligible ongoing trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed an evaluation study and based our search for RCTs on the eligibility criteria of a systematic review that focused on the underrepresentation of people with chronic kidney disease in cardiovascular RCTs. We conducted a combined search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible RCTs registered up to June 1, 2023. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for publications of eligible RCTs published up to June 5, 2023. Finally, we compared the search results to determine the extent to which the two sources identified the same RCTs.

RESULTS

We included 92 completed RCTs. Of these, 81 had results available. Sixty-six completed RCTs with available results were identified by both sources (81% agreement [95% CI: 71-88]). We identified seven completed RCTs with results exclusively by CTR search (9% [95% CI: 4-17]) and eight exclusively by EBD search (10% [95% CI: 5-18]). Eleven RCTs were completed but lacked results (four identified by both sources (36% [95% CI: 15-65]), one exclusively by EBD search (9% [95% CI: 1-38]), and six exclusively by CTR search (55% [95% CI: 28-79])). Also, we identified 42 eligible ongoing RCTs: 16 by both sources (38% [95% CI: 25-53]) and 26 exclusively by CTR search (62% [95% CI: 47-75]). Lastly, we identified four RCTs of unknown status by both sources.

CONCLUSION

CTR searches identify a greater number of completed RCTs than EBD searches. Both searches missed some included RCTs. Based on our case study, researchers (eg, information specialists, systematic reviewers) aiming to identify all available RCTs should continue to search both sources. Once the barriers to performing CTR searches alone are targeted, CTR searches may be a suitable alternative.

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.

A review of clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022 to describe the first-in-human trials

Aim

This analysis was conducted to review the number, and describe the characteristics of first-in-human (FIH) Phase 1 clinical trials registered in India from 2008 to 2022.

Materials and Methods

The data were extracted from the Clinical Trials Registry - India database for all FIH Phase 1 clinical trials registered between 2008 and 2022. Early-phase trials that were not FIH trials (e.g., pharmacokinetic studies and drug-drug interaction studies) were excluded from the study.

Results

A total of 1891 trials were retrieved and 220 were included in the analysis. Most of the investigational products were drugs (55%) followed by vaccines (38.2%). The most common therapeutic class of drugs was cancer chemotherapy (19.8%), followed by antimicrobial chemotherapy and endocrinology (18.2% each). The most common vaccine was the influenza vaccine (21.4%), followed by the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (15.5%). The pharmaceutical industry was the predominant sponsor for most (91%) of the Phase 1 trials. Of the top five sites where most of the Phase 1 trials were conducted, three were private nonacademic centers (cumulatively 31%) and two were tertiary care medical colleges (cumulatively 9%).

Conclusion

Phase 1 clinical trials seem to be conducted in India predominantly with industry sponsorship. There is a need to have an alternate ecosystem to take forward molecules that do not receive adequate attention from the industry and molecules that are of national health priority other than areas such as chemotherapy, antimicrobials, and endocrinology. The Indian Council of Medical Research is setting up Phase 1 clinical trial capacity for molecules that predominantly may arise from nonindustry channels.

The international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP): data integrity and the trends in clinical trials, diseases, and drugs

Introduction: Clinical trials are the gold standard for testing new therapies. Databases like ClinicalTrials.gov provide access to trial information, mainly covering the US and Europe. In 2006, WHO introduced the global ICTRP, aggregating data from ClinicalTrials.gov and 17 other national registers, making it the largest clinical trial platform by June 2019. This study conducts a comprehensive global analysis of the ICTRP database and provides framework for large-scale data analysis, data preparation, curation, and filtering. Materials and methods: The trends in 689,793 records from the ICTRP database (covering trials registered from 1990 to 2020) were analyzed. Records were adjusted for duplicates and mapping of agents to drug classes was performed. Several databases, including DrugBank, MESH, and the NIH Drug Information Portal were used to investigate trends in agent classes. Results: Our novel approach unveiled that 0.5% of the trials we identified were hidden duplicates, primarily originating from the EUCTR database, which accounted for 82.9% of these duplicates. However, the overall number of hidden duplicates within the ICTRP seems to be decreasing. In total, 689 793 trials (478 345 interventional) were registered in the ICTRP between 1990 and 2020, surpassing the count of trials in ClinicalTrials.gov (362 500 trials by the end of 2020). We identified 4 865 unique agents in trials with DrugBank, whereas 2 633 agents were identified with NIH Drug Information Portal data. After the ClinicalTrials.gov, EUCTR had the most trials in the ICTRP, followed by CTRI, IRCT, CHiCTR, and ISRCTN. CHiCTR displayed a significant surge in trial registration around 2015, while CTRI experienced rapid growth starting in 2016. Conclusion: This study highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of using the ICTRP as a data source for analyzing trends in clinical trials, and emphasizes the value of utilizing multiple registries for a comprehensive analysis.

EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES IN INTERVENTION RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS - DISTAL RADIUS FRACTURES

Objectives

Describe the frequency and types of outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of intervention for distal radius fractures, analyze how confusing outcome presentations can lead to misinterpretations, and suggest strategies to improve the reader's understanding of the decision-making process.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted through a systematized search on the PubMed® database in the last 10 years, in which only intervention RCT was included for distal radius fractures, and outcomes were analyzed.

Results

Of the primary outcomes analyzed in the 75 selected articles, 46.6% were classified as clinical outcomes, 20% as surrogate, 30.6% as composite, 1.3% as complex scales, and 1.3% as safety outcomes. 34.7% of the articles did not report adverse events.

Conclusion

The presentation of outcomes with little clinical relevance represented more than half of the sample (53.4%) - such studies can harm the reader since they confuse the interpretation of scientific evidence; the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative could help health professionals in understanding and selecting the most appropriate therapeutic interventions for patients. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective comparative study .

Time to Publication and Time-Lag Publication Bias for Randomized Trials on Connective Tissue Diseases

OBJECTIVE

To assess the time from completion to publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on connective tissue diseases (CTDs), investigate the factors associated with, and explore the influence of significance of study results on time to publication (time-lag publication bias).

METHODS

We included interventional, phase 2/3, 3, or 4 RCTs on CTDs registered in Clinicaltrials.gov from 2000 to 2016, whose results had been published in a peer-review journal less than 5 years after their completion. Main trial features, including the significance of primary outcome results, were collected. Time to publication was the time from study completion to the earliest publication date. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify factors associated with time to publication.

RESULTS

We included 62 studies, mostly phase 3 (61%) trials on pharmacologic treatments (94%); we recruited patients with systemic lupus (55%) or systemic sclerosis (23%) and planned to enroll a median of 131 (IQR [interquartile range]: 61-288) patients. Twenty-two (35%) reported at least a statistically significant primary outcome. Median time to publication was 28 months (IQR: 17-36). In a multivariable analysis, time to publication progressively improved over time (faster publication in recent years, with the average time to publication decreasing by 1.3 [95% CI: 0.3-2.3] months per year) and was not influenced by the significance of primary outcome results, funder, impact factor of the journal, number of recruiting countries, and comparator.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of CTDs-RCTs is published beyond 2 years from completion. We did not find evidence of time-lag publication bias, and time to publication improved over time.

Standardization of Animal Models and Techniques for Platelet-Rich Fibrin Production: A Narrative Review and Guideline

Experimental research is critical for advancing medical knowledge and enhancing patient outcomes, including in vitro and in vivo preclinical assessments. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a blood by-product that has garnered attention in the medical and dental fields due to its potential for tissue regeneration and wound healing. Animal models, such as rabbits and rats, have been used to produce PRF and examine its properties and applications. PRF has demonstrated potential in the dental and medical fields for reducing inflammation, promoting tissue repair, and accelerating wound healing. This narrative review aims to compare existing evidence and provide guidelines for PRF animal research, emphasizing the importance of standardizing animal models, following ethical considerations, and maintaining transparency and accountability. The authors highlight the necessity to use the correct relative centrifugal force (RCF), standardize centrifugal calibration, and report detailed information about blood collection and centrifuge parameters for reproducible results. Standardizing animal models and techniques is crucial for narrowing the gap between laboratory research and clinical applications, ultimately enhancing the translation of findings from bench to bedside.

The Consistency between Registered Acupuncture-Moxibustion Clinical Studies and Their Published Studies and Update Status of Registered Information

BACKGROUND

Few studies have analyzed the consistency between registered acupuncture-moxibustion clinical studies and their published research results as well as their update status of registered information.

METHODS

We searched for acupuncture-moxibustion clinical studies that were registered at the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between 2013 and 2015 and collected data regarding their characteristics and update status. Published results of these registered studies were identified and compared with registered information.

RESULTS

A total of 425 registered acupuncture-moxibustion clinical studies were included; 379 (89.2%) of them were interventional studies, and the remaining 46 (10.8%) were observational studies. Forty-six studies (10.8%) were found to have published results, and 51 published articles were identified. Overall, 73.2% (311) of registered studies did not update the research status in time; 46.6% (198) stopped updating before recruiting; 21.6% (92) stopped updating after recruiting; and 4.9% (21) stopped updating after completion. Regarding the 46 studies with published results, 29 (63.0%) were considered to be affected by reporting bias. These reporting biases predominantly involved the omission of some predefined outcomes or endpoints (16 studies), contradictions regarding descriptions of sample sizes (9 studies), discrepancies in treatment measurements or group distribution (7 studies), and inconsistent treatment durations (4 studies). When compared with other studies, significant and various reporting biases could also be commonly found in fields other than acupuncture-moxibustion.

CONCLUSIONS

There were many discrepancies between registered information and published reports on acupuncture-moxibustion, which could also be commonly observed in other fields. Moreover, a large proportion of registered studies did not update their research status in time. Efforts should be made to improve the reporting quality and timely updates.

Hintergrund

Es gibt nur wenige Studien, in denen die Übereinstimmung zwischen den registrierten klinischen Studien zur Akupunktur und Moxibustion mit den veröffentlichten Studienergebnissen und dem Aktualisierungsstand der Informationen im Register untersucht wurde.

Methoden

Wir suchten nach klinischen Studien zur Akupunktur und Moxibustion, die zwischen 2013 und 2015 auf der International Clinical Trials Registry Platform der Weltgesundheitsorganisation registriert wurden, und erhoben Daten zu ihren Merkmalen und ihrem Aktualisierungsstand. Die veröffentlichten Ergebnisse der registrierten Studien wurden identifiziert und mit den Informationen im Register verglichen.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt wurden 425 registrierte klinische Studien zur Akupunktur und Moxibustion eingeschlossen, davon waren 379 (89,2 %) Interventionsstudien und die restlichen 46 (10,8 %) waren Beobachtungsstudien. Es wurden 46 Studien (10,8 %) mit veröffentlichten Ergebnissen gefunden und 51 veröffentlichte Artikel identifiziert. Insgesamt wurde bei 73,2 % (311) der registrierten Studien der Forschungsstand nicht zeitnah aktualisiert; bei 46,6 % (198) wurde die Aktualisierung vor der Rekrutierung eingestellt; bei 21,6 % (92) wurde die Aktualisierung nach der Rekrutierung eingestellt und bei 4,9 % (21) wurde die Aktualisierung nach Abschluss der Studie eingestellt. Von den 46 Studien mit veröffentlichten Ergebnissen wurden 29 (63,0 %) als von Publikationsverzerrung betroffen angesehen. Diese Publikationsverzerrung betraf vor allem die Auslassung einiger vordefinierter Zielkriterien oder Endpunkte (16 Studien), Widersprüche bei der Beschreibung des Stichprobenumfangs (9 Studien), Diskrepanzen bei den Behandlungsmessungen oder der Gruppenverteilung (7 Studien) und Inkonsistenzen bei der Behandlungsdauer (4 Studien). Beim Vergleich mit anderen Studien wurden auch in anderen Bereichen als Akupunktur und Moxibustion häufig signifikante und unterschiedliche Publikationsverzerrungen festgestellt.

Schlussfolgerungen

Es bestanden zahlreiche Diskrepanzen zwischen den Informationen im Register und den veröffentlichten Berichten über Akupunktur und Moxibustion, die auch in anderen Bereichen häufig zu beobachten waren. Darüber hinaus wurde bei einem Großteil der registrierten Studien der Forschungsstand nicht zeitnah aktualisiert. Es sollten Anstrengungen unternommen werden, um die Qualität der Berichterstattung und die zeitnahe Aktualisierung zu verbessern.

Towards full clinical trial registration and results publication: longitudinal meta-research study in Northwestern and Central Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020.

METHODS

We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators.

RESULTS

Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.

A cross-sectional study of the endorsement proportion of reporting guidelines in 1039 Chinese medical journals

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality is a critical issue in health sciences. Adopting the reporting guidelines has been approved to be an effective way of enhancing the reporting quality and transparency of clinical research. In 2012, we found that only 7 (7/1221, 0.6%) journals adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in China. The aim of the study was to know the implementation status of CONSORT and other reporting guidelines about clinical studies in China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted. Eight medical databases were systematically searched, and 1039 medical journals published in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were included. The basic characteristics, including subject, language, publication place, journal-indexed databases, and journal impact factors were extracted. The endorsement of reporting guidelines was assessed by a modified 5-level evaluation tool, namely i) positive active, ii) positive weak, iii) passive moderate, iv) passive weak and v) none.

RESULTS

Among included journals, 24.1% endorsed CONSORT, and 0.8% endorsed CONSORT extensions. For STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), STARD (An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies), CARE (CAse REport guidelines), the endorsement proportion were 17.2, 16.6, 16.4, and 14.8% respectively. The endorsement proportion for SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis), AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation), and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) were below 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that the implementation of reporting guidelines was low. We suggest the following initiatives including i) enhancing the level of journal endorsement for reporting guidelines; ii) strengthening the collaboration among authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders; iii) providing training courses for stakeholders; iv) establishing bases for reporting guidelines network in China; v) adopting the endorsement of reporting guidelines in the policies of the China Periodicals Association (CPA); vi) promoting Chinese medical journals into the international evaluation system and publish in English.

Factors affecting willingness to participate in vaccine clinical trials in an underdeveloped country: perspective from Nepal

Due to the inherent complex nature of clinical trials, individual’s willingness to participate and hence, enrollment in a clinical trial maybe challenging. When it comes to vaccine clinical trial in children, informed consent needs to be secured from the parents or legally acceptable representatives (LARs). Some of the factors which contribute to hesitancy in taking part in clinical trials are based on the level of education, living standards, part of the world they live, associated burden of disease, fear of different procedures in clinical trial, side effects, limited understanding, limited time, and mistrust with Investigational product. This study included 201 parents/LARs, who approached Kanti Children Hospital site in Kathmandu with the interest to get their children enrolled in a vaccine clinical trial with objectives of describing the reasons for agreeing or disagreeing to participate in the vaccine clinical trial, factors affecting decision making, and finding the major concerns of parents/LARs. The acceptance for the study vaccine was 136 (67.7%) whereas denial was 65 (32.3%). This study showed that age, education level, family structure, advice from family and friends, and medical guidance play important roles in willingness of parents to get their child enrolled in the trial. If a proper counseling is done, fear of blood sampling is not a big factor which is contrary to the belief among clinical researchers. Safety of vaccine, frequency of injections, and cost of vaccine were the main concerns of the parents, which need to be addressed extensively while planning for any clinical trial in children.

Development, implementation and validation of resource-stratified guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Nearly every field of medicine has some form of clinical practice guidelines. However, only within the past 5-10 years has the medical community acknowledged the need for well-developed guidelines tailored to the local healthcare needs and the resources available. In most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), healthcare workers depend on guidelines developed in high-income countries (HICs), yet many interventions validated in a HIC are ineffective when implemented in an LMIC. The variation in infrastructure, medical personnel, technology and environmental conditions exhibited in LMICs relative to HICs necessitates a careful appraisal of the evidence base used in clinical guideline recommendations. This review aims to map the use of resource-stratified guidelines across all fields of medicine. The review seeks to answer three questions for the identified guidelines: (1) what was the method of development, (2) have they been implemented and, if so, (3) have they been validated.

METHODS

The search strategy will aim to locate studies from inception to November 2021. An initial limited search of PubMed and Scopus was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a full search strategy for PubMed and Scopus. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Data to be extracted from each study will include population characteristics of both developers and intended implementation population, medical specialty, validation status, method of guideline development, whether the study is consensus or evidence-based in addition to a summary of recommendations for practice.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal.

The characteristics of registered acupuncture clinical trials enrolling cancer patients

PURPOSE

This study sought to explore and summarize the global state of acupuncture clinical trials enrolling cancer patients included in international registries to date.

METHODS

All relevant trials evaluating acupuncture-related interventions for the treatment of cancer that were registered in 16 trial registries from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2020, were identified. Subsequent publications related to these trials were additionally retrieved from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP (China Science and Technology Journal Database), and Wanfang databases. We compared information included in these registries regarding completed trials with any associated publications, with a focus on study design, sample size, and selective reporting, based on the registered protocol.

RESULTS

In total, 222 eligible trials across 19 countries were identified. These trials included 17 specific cancer types and 32 symptoms. The five most common cancer types were breast cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and gastric cancer, accounting for almost half of all registered trials (48.2%). The top five symptoms included in these trials were chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), cancer-related pain, cancer-related fatigue, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), and gastrointestinal dysfunction. The overall rate of article publication was low, with publications being associated with just 33.3% of these registered trials.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is the first snapshot of the landscape of acupuncture clinical trials registered in international trial registries, providing a methodological basis for the management of common treatment- and disease-related side effects among cancer patients undergoing acupuncture and offering useful information that will guide future acupuncture-focused research.

Availability of Results of Trials Studying Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma over the Past 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal cancer with few therapeutic options. Availability of results is a crucial step in interventional research. Our aim was to evaluate results availability for trials in patients with PDAC and explore associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study and searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for trials evaluating PDAC management with a primary completion date between 1 January 2010 and 1 June 2020. Then, we searched for results submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov and/or published. Our primary outcome was the proportion of PDAC trials with available results: submitted on ClinicalTrials.gov (either publicly available or undergoing quality control check) and/or published in a full-text article. The association of predefined trial characteristics with results availability was assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 551 trials of which 386 (70%) had available results. The cumulative percentage of trials with available results was 21% (95% CI, 18-25%) at 12 months after the primary completion date, 44% (95% CI, 30-48%) at 24 months and 57% (95% CI, 53-61%) at 36 months. Applicable clinical trials, required to comply with the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act 801 and its final rule on reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, were more likely to have available results over time (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.72-2.63], P < .001). Industry-funded, small sample size, and terminated trials were less likely to have available results. Other trial characteristics showed no association with results availability.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight a waste in interventional research studying PDAC.

Impact of the Clinical Trials Act 2018 on clinical trial activity in Japan from 2018 to 2020: a retrospective database study using new and conventional Japanese registries

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the impact of Japan's Clinical Trials Act (CTA), which was enacted in April 2018, on subsequent clinical trial activity through an analysis of Japanese registry data.

DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

We extracted information on clinical intervention studies registered between 1 April 2018 and 30 September 2020 in the conventional University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) and the new Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT). We collected and analysed information on registration dates, intervention types, funding, secondary sponsors and use of designated staff in multidisciplinary roles (research planning support, research administration, data management, statistical analysis, monitoring and auditing). The temporal trends in clinical trial activity after CTA enactment were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 577 CTA-compliant specified clinical trials (ie, studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of off-label drugs or devices in humans) were registered in the jRCT. During the same period, 5068 clinical trials were registered in the UMIN-CTR. The number of specific clinical trials increased immediately after the implementation of the CTA and stabilised in late 2019, whereas the number of clinical trials registered in the UMIN-CTR generally declined over time. Specified clinical trials that received industry funding and public grants were more likely to use designated staff in multidisciplinary roles.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the CTA has not reduced the number of specified clinical trials, but has reduced the total number of intervention trials. The use of designated staff in multidisciplinary roles is associated with funding, secondary sponsors and multicentre studies. It was inferred that funding was needed to establish research infrastructure systems that support high-quality research.

A comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in clinical trials of opioid use disorder: ACTTION review and recommendations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prospective trial registration can increase research integrity. This Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) review was designed to compare the primary outcomes (PO) reported in registries with associated publications for opioid use disorder (OUD) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was searched for completed trials (2010 through 2019). Associated publications were identified and paired with trial registry data based on the publication date.

MEASUREMENTS

Reviewers independently rated the occurrence of discrepancies between the POs in the registry compared to the publication. An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration was also completed.

FINDINGS

One-hundred and forty trials were identified in the search, and 43 registry-publication pairs evaluated. Only 34 of the 43 pairs could be examined for discrepancies because nine did not report a PO in registry and publication. Of the 34 pairs, only four met rigorous criteria for prospective trial registration and had an exact match of POs. In contrast, the majority of the 34 trials, or 80%, had inconsistent POs (e.g., registered secondary outcomes published as primary; the timing of PO not specified) and/or were retrospectively registered.

CONCLUSIONS

Many clinical trials focused on OUD have not met the standards of trial registration, such as consistent reporting of POs and prospective registration. Failure to properly register trial characteristics undermines the validity of research findings and can delay the development of life-saving treatments. Recommendations for improving prospective trial reporting practices are provided.

Inequities in cancer drug development in terms of unmet medical need

This study measures inequality and inequity in the distribution of clinical trials on cancer drug development between 1996 and 2016, comparing the number of clinical trials with cancer need, proxied by prevalence, incidence, or survival rates for both rare and non-rare cancers. We leverage a unique global database of clinical trials activity and costs between 1996 and 2016, constructed for 227 different cancer types to measure for rare and non-rare cancers: i) inequalities and inequity of clinical trial activity, considering all trials as well as split by R&D stage; ii) inequalities and inequity in R&D investment proxied by trial enrollment and duration; iii) evolution of inequity over time. Inequalities are measured with concentration curves and indices and inequities measured with the health inequity index. We find four important results. First, we show pro-low need inequity across cancer types for both rare and non-rare cancers, for all need proxies. Second, we show inequity differs across R&D stages and between rare and non-rare cancers. The distribution of clinical trials for non-rare cancers disproportionately favors low-need non-rare cancers from earlier to later stages of R&D, whilst for rare cancers this only occurs in Phase 2 trials. Third, inequity analyses in R&D investment show that only trial enrollment for rare cancers and trial duration for non-rare cancers are disproportionately concentrated among low-need cancers. Finally, while pro-low need inequity has persisted between 1996 and 2016 for non-rare cancers, it has faded for rare cancers post-EU orphan drugs' legislation.

The Impact of the Priority Review Voucher on Research and Development for Tropical Diseases

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the priority review voucher (PRV) was implemented in the US to incentivize research and development (R&D) for tropical diseases. The PRV is issued by the US FDA and grants a quicker review to manufacturers upon successful development of a product for a disease eligible for the program.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this analysis was to assess whether the PRV has incentivized R&D (measured as clinical trial activity) for the intended tropical diseases.

METHOD

We used a difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) strategy by exploiting variation in its implementation across diseases and registries around the world. Clinical trials were retrieved from the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for the years 2005-2019.

RESULTS

We found a positive, but not statistically significant, effect of the PRV on stimulating R&D activity. Delayed effects of the policy could not be found.

CONCLUSION

Our findings, which were robust across a series of robustness tests, suggest that the PRV program is not associated with a trigger in innovation for neglected diseases and therefore should not be considered as a stand-alone solution. It should be supplemented with other government measures to incentivize R&D activity. To increase the value of the program, we recommend that the PRV only be awarded to novel products and not to products that have already been licensed outside the US. Doing so would restrict the number of vouchers awarded and slow down their ongoing market depreciation. Finally, we propose that product sponsors be required to submit an access plan for PRV-awarded products.

Availability of results of interventional studies assessing colorectal cancer from 2013 to 2020

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent cancers worldwide. Our aim was to evaluate the availability of results of interventional studies studying CRC. We searched the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for all interventional studies on CRC management in adults completed or terminated between 01/01/2013 and 01/01/2020. To identify results, we searched for results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article. Our primary outcome was the proportion of CRC interventional studies with available results (i.e. posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and/or published in a full-text article). Secondary outcomes were 1) median time between primary completion and earliest date of results availability, 2) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results available over time 3) the cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov registry over time and 4) the percentage of results available in open access. We identified 763 eligible interventional studies in ClinicalTrials.gov, which included 679 198 patients. Of these, 286 (37%) trials, including 270 845 (40%) patients, did not have any results available. Median time for results availability was 32.6 months (IQ 16.1-unreached). The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with available results was 17% at 12 months, 39% at 24 months and 55% at 36 months. Results were more likely available for trials that were randomized, completed, had one trial site in the United States, and with mixed funding. The cumulative percentage of interventional studies with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov was 2% at 12 months. Results were available in open access for 420 (420/477 = 88%) trials. Our results highlight an important waste in research for interventional studies studying CRC.

Broad Medical Uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness

This paper argues that there exists a collective epistemic state of 'Broad Medical Uncertainty' (BMU) regarding the effectiveness of many medical interventions. We outline the features of BMU, and describe some of the main contributing factors. These include flaws in medical research methodologies, bias in publication practices, financial and other conflicts of interest, and features of how evidence is translated into practice. These result in a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of many medical treatments and unduly optimistic beliefs about the benefit/harm profiles of such treatments. We argue for an ethical presumption in favour of openness regarding BMU as part of a 'Corrective Response'. We then consider some objections to this position (the 'Anti-Corrective Response'), including concerns that public honesty about flaws in medical research could undermine trust in healthcare institutions. We suggest that, as it stands, the Anti-Corrective Response is unconvincing.

Data flow within global clinical trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To document clinical trial data flow in global clinical trials published in major journals between 2013 and 2021 from Global South to Global North.

DESIGN

Scoping analysis METHODS: We performed a search in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to retrieve randomised clinical trials published between 2013 and 2021 from The BMJ, BMJ Global Health, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, Lancet Global Health and the New England Journal of Medicine. Studies were included if they involved recruitment and author affiliation across different country income groupings using World Bank definitions. The direction of data flow was extracted with a data collection tool using sites of trial recruitment as the starting point and the location of authors conducting statistical analysis as the ending point.

RESULTS

Of 1993 records initially retrieved, 517 studies underwent abstract screening, 348 studies underwent full-text screening and 305 studies were included. Funders from high-income countries were the sole funders of the majority (82%) of clinical trials that recruited across income groupings. In 224 (73.4%) of all assessable studies, data flowed exclusively to authors affiliated with high-income countries or to a majority of authors affiliated with high-income countries for statistical analysis. Only six (3.2%) studies demonstrated data flow to lower middle-income countries and upper middle-income countries for analysis, with only one with data flow to a lower middle-income country.

CONCLUSIONS

Global clinical trial data flow demonstrates a Global South to Global North trajectory. Policies should be re-examined to assess how data sharing across country income groupings can move towards a more equitable model.

Trends and variation in data quality and availability on the European Union Clinical Trials Register: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The European Union Clinical Trials Register is a public facing portal containing information on trials of medicinal products conducted under the purview of the European Union regulatory system. As of September 2021, the registry holds information on over 40,000 trials. Given its distinct regulatory purpose, and results reporting requirements, the European Union Clinical Trials Register should be a valuable open-source hub for trial information. Past work examining the European Union Clinical Trials Register has suggested that data quality on the registry may be lacking. We therefore set out to examine the quality and availability of trial data on the registry with a focus on areas that fall under the authority of regulators in each European Union/European Economic Area country.

METHODS

Using data scraped from the full European Union Clinical Trials Register public dataset, we examined the extent of issues with three areas of trial data availability linked to European Union regulations. We examined whether there is evidence for missing registration of protocols in the public database, whether information on the completion of clinical trials is being made available and how often the results of trials are posted to the registry. We assessed each area overall, and examined variation between national regulators and over time.

RESULTS

Major issues with the availability of expected protocols and information on trial completion were focused in a few countries. Overall, when comparing enrolment countries from tabular results to available registrations, 26,932 of 31,118 (86.5%) expected protocols were available and 22 of 30 (73%) countries had over 90% of expected protocols available. The majority of missing protocols, totalling 2764 (66%), were from just three countries: France, Norway and Poland. Evidence for this issue is further supported by data on trends in new registrations by country over time. Low availability of data on trial completion is also most pronounced in a minority of countries, like Spain and the Netherlands, with consistent trends for missingness over time. Finally, overall results availability is substantially worse among the 23,623 trials with a single registered European Union protocol (n = 6259, 26.5%) compared to 13,897 of those taking place in multiple countries (n = 8423, 60.6%). Reporting for single-protocol trials was consistently low across both time and location.

CONCLUSION

Deficiencies in the public availability of trial protocols, trial completion information and summary results complicate the utility of the European Union Clinical Trials Register for research, transparency and accountability efforts. Users of the registry would benefit from a more complete and accurate accounting of the European research environment via the official European Union registry. We recommend regulators at the national and pan-national level undertake routine audits of approved trials to ensure national-level issues are proactively and transparently identified, documented and addressed.

Promotion of data sharing needs more than an emergency: An analysis of trends across clinical trials registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform

BACKGROUND

A growing body of evidence shows that sharing health research data with other researchers for secondary analyses can contribute to better health. This is especially important in the context of a public health emergency when stopping a pandemic depends on accelerating science.

METHODS

We analysed the information on data sharing collected by the 18 clinical trial registries included in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to understand the reporting of data sharing plans and which studies were and were not planning to share data. Data on sponsor and funder organisations, country of recruitment, registry, and condition of study were standardised to compare the sharing of information and data across these facets. This represents the first ever comprehensive study of the complete data set contained in ICTRP.

RESULTS

Across 132,545 studies registered between January 2019 and December 2020, 11.2% of studies stated that individual patient data (IPD) would be shared. Plans to share IPD varied across the 18 contributing registries- information on data sharing was missing in >95% of study records across 7/18 registries. In the 26,851 (20.3%) studies that were funded or sponsored by a commercial entity, intention to share IPD was similar to those that were not (11.5% vs 11.2%). Intention to share IPD was most common in studies recruiting across both high-income and low- or middle-income countries (21.4%) and in those recruiting in Sub-Saharan Africa (50.3%). Studies of COVID-19 had similar levels of data sharing to studies of other non-pandemic diseases in 2020 (13.7% vs 11.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of planned IPD sharing vary between clinical trial registries and economic regions, and are similar whether commercial or non-commercial agencies are involved. Despite many calls to action, plans to share IPD have not increased significantly and remain below 14% for diseases causing public health emergencies.

Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Methods

First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021–03-22 and 2018–03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.

Results

We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021–03-22 and 2018–03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.

Conclusions

Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09334-5.

A Quantitative Synthesis of Eight Decades of Global Multiple Sclerosis Research Using Bibliometrics

Bibliometric studies on the field of multiple sclerosis (MS) research are scarce. The aim of this study is to offer an overarching view of the body of knowledge about MS research over eight decades–from 1945 to 2021–by means of a bibliometric analysis. We performed a quantitative analysis of a massive dataset based on Web of Science. The analysis included frequencies, temporal trends, collaboration networks, clusters of research themes, and an in-depth qualitative analysis. A total of 48,356 articles, with 1,766,086 citations were retrieved. Global MS research showed a steady increase with an annual growth rate of 6.4%, with more than half of the scientific production published in the last decade. Published articles came from 98 different countries by 123,569 authors in 3,267 journals, with the United States ranking first in a number of publications (12,770) and citations (610,334). A co-occurrence network analysis formed four main themes of research, covering the pathophysiological mechanisms, neuropsychological symptoms, diagnostic modalities, and treatment of MS. A noticeable increase in research on cognition, depression, and fatigue was observed, highlighting the increased attention to the quality of life of patients with MS. This bibliometric analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the status of global MS research over the past eight decades. These results could provide a better understanding of this field and help identify new directions for future research.

Trends of clinical trials from 2017 to 2019 in Korea: an integrated analysis based on the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) registries

Public disclosure of approved clinical trials in a reliable registry can provide the transparency of the study. Although the registration of clinical trials has increased remarkably, the integrity of the data is not always satisfactory. In this study, we analyzed public clinical trial databases updated by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) registry to provide an overview of the trends of clinical trials approved between 2017 and 2019 in Korea. Information on clinical trials approved between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019 was collected from two databases. Trial information was categorized and summarized by study phase, therapeutic area, and location of the participating centers. A total of 655 to 715 clinical trials were newly approved annually by MFDS during the period from 2017 to 2019. Phase 1 clinical trials accounted for the largest proportion (31.0%), followed by phase 3 (29.5%), investigator-initiated trials (24.1%), phase 2 (14.6%), and phase 4 (0.5%). The number of clinical trials classified as an Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agent was the greatest (40.1%) regardless of the study phase. The similar result was obtained from CRIS registry where therapeutic area Neoplasms (15.9%) accounted for the largest number. The number of clinical trials performed in Seoul and Gyeonggi-do was approximately 70% of the total trials. In conclusion, our study provided a comprehensive overview of clinical trials in Korea from 2017 to 2019. The discrepancy between clinical trial registries could be resolved by introducing standardized database and guidelines.

Discrepancies between FDA documents and ClinicalTrials.gov for Orphan Drug-related clinical trial data

Clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) hold large amounts of data regarding trials. Drugs for rare diseases are known as orphan drugs (ODs), and it is particularly important that trials for ODs are registered, and the data in the trial record are accurate. However, there may be discrepancies between trial-related data that were the basis for the approval of a drug, as available from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents such as the Medical Review, and the data in CTG. We performed an audit of FDA-approved ODs, comparing trial-related data on phase, enrollment, and enrollment attribute (anticipated or actual) in such FDA documents and in CTG. The Medical Reviews of 63 ODs listed 422 trials. We used study identifiers in the Medical Reviews to find matches with the trial ID number, 'Other ID' or 'Acronyms' in CTG, and identified 202 trials that were registered with CTG. In comparing the phase data from the 'Table of Clinical Studies' of the Medical Review, with the data in CTG, there were exact matches in only 75% of the cases. The enrollment matched only in 70% of the cases, and the enrollment attribute in 91% of the cases. A similar trend was found for the sub-set of pivotal trials. Going forward, for all trials listed in a registry, it is important to provide the trial ID in the Medical Review. This will ensure that all trials that are the basis of a drug approval can be swiftly and unambiguously identified in CTG. Also, there continue to be discrepancies in trial data between FDA documents and CTG. Data in the trial records in CTG need to be updated when relevant.

Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Background

Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004.

Methods

The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the ‘Cochrane Risk of bias’ assessment tool 1.0.

Results

In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36% (27/75) were pro- and 64% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32%), a new primary outcome (26%), and different outcome assessment times (26%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as ‘overall low risk of bias’ compared to non-registered trials (64% vs 28%).

Conclusions

In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w.

COVID-19-related research in Africa: a cross-sectional review of the International Clinical Trial Registration Platform (ICTRP)

Objective

The declaration of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), a pandemic in early 2020, has seen an upsurge in research globally to fill gaps in the epidemiology of the SARS-CoV-2 virus impact on health care and clinical management, as well as possible prevention and treatment modalities. Published literature on the different types of COVID-19 research conducted globally is varied and is particularly limited in Africa. This study sets out to describe the COVID-19-related research registered and conducted on the African continent.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of all COVID-19-related studies available in the WHO’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) repository. We extracted studies registered from March 1, 2020, to July 15, 2021. A descriptive analysis of the extracted data was performed, and the findings were presented.

Results

At extraction, a total of 12,533 COVID-19-related studies were listed on the ICTRP portal. We included 9803 studies, after excluding 2060 duplicate records and 686 records without a site/country. While 9347 studies (96%) were conducted outside of Africa, only 456 studies (4%) were conducted in the African continent, of which 270 (59.2%) were interventional studies, and 184 (40.4%) were observational studies. About 80% of the studies were conducted in Egypt and South Africa, and most of these involved testing of drugs and biologicals.

Conclusion

The African continent hosts considerably fewer COVID-19-related research compared to other parts of the world. This may have implications on scientific evidence available for implementing COVID-19 control efforts. There is, therefore, a need for local funding and ownership of research projects and north-south collaboration in research.

Partnerships and Collaborations: The Right Alliances for Clinical Trials in Africa

Africa attracts < 1% of all trials conducted around the world. The implication is that proof of safety and efficacy in Africans is lacking for a lot of new therapies. The sizeable proportion of approximately 20% of the global population that Africa represents largely does not have empiric data to support use of new therapies in a population with a distinct genetic and racial profile. Beyond the imperative of evidence-based interventions, Africans carry a disproportionately heavy burden of certain diseases, including prostate cancer, sickle cell anemia, and malaria. It therefore provides opportunity for efficient recruitment of participants for trials for such diseases. However, this advantage has not convinced sponsors to carry out clinical trials in Africa. India and China each have roughly the same population size as Africa, but each presents just one regulatory jurisdiction for clinical trials. Africa has 54 countries, and a sponsor would theoretically need to file 54 different applications to cover the entire continent. Collaboration and partnership among all stakeholders in the clinical trial ecosystem will reduce the burden on sponsors and make Africa competitive as a destination for clinical trials. Collaboration among national regulatory agencies will enable Africa to be treated as one regulatory jurisdiction and reduce administrative burden. Sites and researchers can partner to improve quality, attain necessary certifications, and increase overall efficiency. Central to all of these are clinical research organizations that can coordinate and work across borders to make clinical trial projects seamless. Ultimately, patients will benefit as quality of clinical practice improves and access to new therapies is enhanced.

Landscape of Oncology Clinical Trials in Africa

PURPOSE

The burden of cancer in Africa is of significant concern for several reasons, including that incidence of cancer in Africa continues to rise while Africa is also dealing with communicable diseases. To combat cancer in Africa, oncology clinical trials are needed to develop innovative interventions for cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical trials in Africa and it is difficult for African clinicians to get information on open oncology clinical trials and impossible for African patients with cancer to access this information. The primary objective of this study was to identify open oncology clinical trials in Africa.

METHODS

This project was part of a large-scale study to develop an African Virtual Platform for Oncology Clinical Trials Registry. The study was a quantitative, web-based, retrospective review of clinical trials registries.

RESULTS

A total of 109 open oncology clinical trials were identified. Most of the trials were in Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, and Kenya. The top cancer types for oncology clinical trials in Africa were breast, cervical, and lung cancers. The top sponsor of oncology clinical trials in Africa was academic institutions, especially institutions in the United States.

CONCLUSION

The paucity of clinical trials in Africa will continue to magnify the global disparities of cancer in the African population. Clinical trials are needed to ensure therapeutic interventions are safe and effective in the African population. In the era of personalized and precision health, it no longer suffices to assume that drugs developed in North America, Europe, or Asia will be effective in the African population.

Trends in clinical trial registration in sub-Saharan Africa between 2010 and 2020: a cross-sectional review of three clinical trial registries

OBJECTIVE

Prospective registration of clinical trials is an ethical, scientific, and legal requirement that serves several functions, including minimising research wastage and publication bias. Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is increasingly hosting clinical trials over the past few years, and there is limited literature on trends in clinical trial registration and reporting in SSA. Therefore, we set out to determine the trends in clinical trials registered in SSA countries between 2010 and July 2020.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design was used to describe the type of clinical trials that are conducted in SSA from 1 January 2010 to 31 July 2020. The registries searched were ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG), the Pan African Clinical Trials Register (PACTR), and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN). Data were extracted into Excel and imported into STATA for descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

CTG had the highest number of registered trials at 2622, followed by PACTR with 1501 and ISRCTN with 507 trials. Trials were observed to increase gradually from 2010 and peaked at 2018-2019. Randomised trials were the commonest type, accounting for at least 80% across the three registries. Phase three trials investigating drugs targeted at infections/infestations were the majority. Few completed trials had their results posted: 58% in ISRCTN and 16.5% in CTG, thus suggesting reporting bias.

CONCLUSION

Despite the gradual increase in clinical trials registered during the period, recent trends suggest a drop in the number of trials registered across the region. Strengthening national and regional regulatory capacity will improve clinical trial registration and minimise reporting bias in completed clinical trials.