Transparency in ovarian cancer clinical trial results: ClinicalTrials.gov versus PubMed, Embase and Google scholar

Transparency of clinical trials in pancreatic cancer: An analysis of availability of trial results from the ClinicalTrials.gov database

Background

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly malignant tumor of the digestive system. As clinical trials involving PC are increasingly being conducted, the transparency of the generated data has become an important issue of concern. In other areas of medicine, clinical trial transparency presents a worrying state of affairs. However, at present, there has been no study examining the transparency of data derived from PC clinical trials.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in the ClinicalTrial.gov database for clinical trials investigating pancreatic cancer as of June 2022. We examined the availability of clinical trial results and recorded the characteristics of the trials.

Results

A total of 856 trials were included in this study, of which 668 were completed and 188 were terminated or suspended. The results of 626 trials (73.13%) were available, of these 230 trials (26.87%) did not disclose any information on the trial data in any form. The publication rate for trials with available results was 86.10%, but the report rate on ClinicalTrial.gov was only 39.78%.

Conclusion

Although approximately 90% of clinical trial investigating interventions on patients with PC have published study results, 30% of trials did not report any findings, and the disclosure of trial results from ClinicalTrial.gov was unsatisfactory. In general, there is still room for improvement in the transparency of PC clinical trials.

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.

Registered Trials on Artificial Intelligence Conducted in Emergency Department and Intensive Care Unit: A Cross-Sectional Study on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective: Clinical trials contribute to the development of clinical practice. However, little is known about the current status of trials on artificial intelligence (AI) conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit. The objective of the study was to provide a comprehensive analysis of registered trials in such field based on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods: Registered trials on AI conducted in emergency department and intensive care unit were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov up to 12th January 2021. The characteristics were analyzed using SPSS21.0 software.

Results: A total of 146 registered trials were identified, including 61 in emergency department and 85 in intensive care unit. They were registered from 2004 to 2021. Regarding locations, 58 were conducted in Europe, 58 in America, 9 in Asia, 4 in Australia, and 17 did not report locations. The enrollment of participants was from 0 to 18,000,000, with a median of 233. Universities were the primary sponsors, which accounted for 43.15%, followed by hospitals (35.62%), and industries/companies (9.59%). Regarding study designs, 85 trials were interventional trials, while 61 were observational trials. Of the 85 interventional trials, 15.29% were for diagnosis and 38.82% for treatment; of the 84 observational trials, 42 were prospective, 14 were retrospective, 2 were cross-sectional, 2 did not report clear information and 1 was unknown. Regarding the trials' results, 69 trials had been completed, while only 10 had available results on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions: Our study suggest that more AI trials are needed in emergency department and intensive care unit and sponsors are encouraged to report the results.

StudyPortal - Geovisualization of Study Research Networks

StudyPortal was implemented as the first multilingual search platform for geographic visualization of clinical trials and scientific articles. The platform queries information from ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, a geodatabase and geographic maps to enable geospatial study search and real-time rendering of study locations or research networks on a map. Thus, disease-specific clinical studies or whole research networks can be shown in a geographic proximity. Moreover, a semantic layer enables multilingual disease input and autosuggestion of medical terms based on the Unified Medical Language System. The portal is accessible on https://studyportal.uni-muenster.de. This paper presents details on implementation of the novel search platform, its search evaluation and future work.

Clinical Trials Focusing on Drug Control and Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Comprehensive Analysis of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective: Clinical trials have emerged as the main force in driving the development of medicine. However, little is known about the current status of clinical trials regarding drug control and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This study aimed at providing a comprehensive landscape of these trials on the basis of ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study of clinical trials on drug control and prevention of VAP which have been registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov up to 25^th August 2018 was conducted.

Results: A total of 109 eligible trials were identified. Trials were started from 1998 to 2018, and most trials focused on adult patients. More than half trials were completed, while only 11.9% trials had results available. Sample sizes were relatively large, with a median enrollment of 146. Universities were listed as the primary sponsor for 36.7% trials, industry for 28.4% trials and hospitals for 19.3% trials. Of the 109 VAP trials, 37 trials were from in Europe, 36 in North America and 27 in Asia. Among the 97 interventional trials, 32 were phase 3 trials, 21 were phase 4 trials, and 16 were phase 2 trials. Most interventional trials were randomized trials with a parallel assignment, and 57.7% trials were blinded. Of the 12 observational trials, 9 were cohort studies, and 10 trials were prosepctive studies. Drugs about oral care, preemptive antibiotics and probiotics were most investigated for prevention. A total of 61 trials investigated drugs for the treatment of VAP, mainly focused on antibiotics. A total of 36 kinds of antibiotics were investigated for monotherapy or combination therapy. Beta-lactams were most studied, followed by aminoglycosides and polypeptides.

Conclusion: Most clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov about drugs for VAP were interventional trials with the purpose for treatment. A high proportion of interventional trials were randomized, parallel assigned and masked. Our analysis highlights the need for improvement in completeness of study results on the ClinicalTrials.gov.