Special Article
Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005
N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2779-2787December 29, 2005DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa053234
- Abstract
Background
Clinical trial registration allows interested parties to obtain information about ongoing and completed trials, but there are few data indicating the quality of the information provided during the registration process. We used information in the publicly available ClinicalTrials.gov database to describe patterns of trial registration before and after the implementation by journal editors of a new policy requiring registration as a prerequisite for publication.
Methods
We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov records to determine patterns of completion of the “Intervention Name” and “Primary Outcome Measure” data fields for trials registered on May 20 and October 11, 2005, and for trials registered during the interval between these two dates, inclusively.
Results
During the interval studied, the number of registrations in ClinicalTrials.gov increased by 73 percent from 13,153 to 22,714. The percentage of interventional trials registered by industry with nonspecific Intervention Name entries (attributable to four drug companies) decreased from 10 percent to 2 percent; all other industry and nonindustry records contained specific entries in this field. Of the 2670 studies registered by industry between the two dates, 76 percent provided information in the Primary Outcome Measure field, although these entries varied markedly in their degree of specificity. In the remaining 24 percent of the records, this field was blank.
Conclusions
During the summer of 2005, there were large increases in the number of clinical trial registrations. Overall, the data contained in records were more complete in October than they were in May, but there still is room for substantial improvement.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Categories of Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on or between May 20 and October 11, 2005.Figure 2
New Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, According to Week.Article Activity
- Article
Concern about previously undisclosed safety problems with drugs such as paroxetine (Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline) and rofecoxib (Vioxx, Merck) has increased the public's desire for more complete information about clinical research studies.1,2 The provision of basic information about clinical trial protocols in a publicly accessible registry and the public identification of all trials, whether or not their results are subsequently published, have been advocated as ways to address this issue.3-6 Numerous groups have called for comprehensive registration by issuing statements or convening meetings to discuss policy and implementation details.7-15
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act, section 113 (FDAMA 113), mandates the registration of all private and public trials that test effectiveness for “serious or life-threatening” conditions submitted to the FDA under investigational-new-drug applications (IND).16 A Web-based registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, was established in 2000 by the National Library of Medicine on behalf of the National Institutes of Health as a result of this law.17,18 Although FDAMA 113 mandates the registration of certain data elements, ClinicalTrials.gov also includes a broad set of optional data elements. In addition, ClinicalTrials.gov permits the registration of any clinical trial, regardless of its IND status, the type of intervention (e.g., surgical procedure, device, or drug), the medical condition, or the country of origin. As of late October 2005, the registry contained more than 23,000 trials.
We examined the completeness and utility of the information contained in trial-registration records in ClinicalTrials.gov from May 20 through October 11, 2005. This period includes time both before and after September 13, 2005, the date of implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) policy requiring the registration of clinical trials as a prerequisite for consideration for publication.7,8
Methods
The Registry
Sponsors, principal investigators, or other persons or organizations with primary responsibility for a given clinical trial (called “data providers”) can register with ClinicalTrials.gov through a Web-based system (http://prsinfo.ClinicalTrials.gov).19 In some instances, “intermediary trial registries,” such as that of the National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov), provide trial data. The database uses both open-ended responses and menu-based options, and terms from the National Library of Medicine Unified Medical Language System20,21 are used to facilitate subsequent information retrieval. Trials with the same protocol that are conducted at multiple sites are considered one trial in the registry. The complete entry in the registry for a given trial is referred to as a record in the database.
ClinicalTrials.gov includes both mandatory and optional data elements. Trials cannot be registered without the completion of all mandatory data elements, which include both FDAMA 113 and registry-imposed requirements. In addition, the ICMJE requires completion of some of the optional data elements. Members of the National Library of Medicine staff manage the quality of information in the registry by rejecting records that do not have all required fields completed, reviewing entries for appropriate content and internal consistency, ensuring that links are active and relevant, checking contact information for recruiting studies, and confirming that approval from an institutional review board has been obtained. In addition, sponsoring organizations must electronically sign off on all entries (and subsequent revisions) before they are made available on the Web site.
Study 1: All Interventional Trials
We described the numbers and types of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Because records in ClinicalTrials.gov can be modified at any time by data providers to keep the information current, this study was conducted with data that were available to the public on May 20, 2005 (before the September 13, 2005, implementation of the ICMJE policy on trial registration) and on October 11, 2005 (four weeks after implementation of the policy). We also reviewed data from trials registered between these two dates, inclusively, which we refer to as the interval sample (Figure 1AFigure 1
Categories of Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on or between May 20 and October 11, 2005.). Searches of ClinicalTrials.gov were accomplished with the use of a National Library of Medicine reporting tool, although they could be replicated with the use of the public search function in combination with individual inspection of those data.Study 2: “Intervention Name” Field
We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov records to determine patterns of completion for the ICMJE-required data element termed “Intervention Name.” FDAMA 113 mandates completion of this field, although it does not specify how informative the entry must be, thereby limiting our ability to enforce the use of specific drug names.
We reviewed Intervention Name fields to see whether the information provided gave clinically meaningful insight into the specific treatment that was being tested. For example, a preliminary review of records showed that nonspecific terms such as “investigational drug,” rather than the name of the drug under study, were occasionally used. We limited our review of this field to interventional trials of drugs or vaccines (Figure 1B). Records were considered acceptable if they specified at least one drug name or unique company identifying serial number. We did not evaluate the completeness of information provided about comparison interventions in a study. For example, a record that lists in the Intervention Name field “acetylsalicylic acid compared with active comparator” would have been considered acceptable for the purpose of this study, even though the information contained was not as clinically meaningful as it would have been if specific names for both drugs had been given.
Study 3: “Primary Outcome Measure” Field
We reviewed ClinicalTrials.gov records to determine patterns of completion for the field termed “Primary Outcome Measure.” This field requests information about the outcome measure used to determine the statistical power of the study. It reflects the primary effect that the intervention is designed to modify. The definition of this data element in the registry states that it should include the measure used and the time of measurement relative to the start of the intervention, such as “death at 180 days after the start of treatment.”22 This field has been available in ClinicalTrials.gov only since October 2004, and completion was initially mandatory for most nonindustry data providers, whereas it has always been optional for industry providers. (Before June 2005, completion of the field was mandatory for all non-IND studies, which accounted for 79 percent of the nonindustry studies and 4 percent of the industry studies. Completion of the field is now optional for all data providers.) To examine how the field is used by data providers in the absence of enforcement by ClinicalTrials.gov, we limited our analysis to industry-registered interventional trials registered between May 20 and October 11, 2005 (Figure 1C).
We first tabulated the number of trials with and without any entry in the Primary Outcome Measure field. We stratified data for the top 20 pharmaceutical companies, ranked according to volume of U.S. drug sales.23 We examined the relationship between completion of this field and the phase of the study. We also assessed the quality of the entries in this field by noting whether or not they specified a measure and a time point. This subjective assessment was made (by one of us) on a sample of the records for phase 2, 3, and 4 drug studies registered by the top 10 drug companies23 during the interval between May 20 and October 11.
Statistical Analysis
We report primarily descriptive statistics. We used a chi-square test to examine the relationship between completion of the Primary Outcome Measure field and phase of study.
Results
Study 1: All Interventional Trials
On May 20, 2005, there were 13,153 records in ClinicalTrials.gov; the number had increased to 22,714 as of October 11, 2005. This increase was largely attributable to a spike in registrations during the period immediately before and after September 13, 2005 (Figure 2Figure 2
New Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, According to Week.). Table 1Table 1
Trials Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on May 20 and October 11, 2005. contains data on the number of trials registered according to key trial characteristics. There were increases in registered trials from all categories of data providers. The sharpest rise was in the category comprising universities, foundations, and other nongovernmental, nonindustry providers. The number of trials registered by commercial sponsors more than doubled, including an increase in the number of IND studies, from 2010 to 3516, and an increase in the number of non-IND studies, from 77 to 1348. Overall, the number of data providers increased from 667 to 1969 during this time. Among commercial sponsors, the number of companies registering trials rose from 328 to 575; among the latter were all of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies (according to volume of sales in the United States in 2005)23 and 14 of the top 20 medical-device companies (according to estimated volume of global sales in 2004).24 We examined the interval sample to determine whether there was a change in registration behavior coincident with the implementation of the ICMJE policy. This sample included 2670 interventional studies registered by industry: 6 percent were phase 1, 28 percent phase 2, 47 percent phase 3, and 19 percent phase 4 trials. FDAMA 113 requires commercial sponsors to register only trials performed under an IND application. However, among the trials added to the database during the interval examined, 45 percent were non-IND studies, as compared with only 4 percent on May 20, 2005. As of October 11, 2005, 59 percent of the 1167 data providers from universities, foundations, and other nongovernmental, nonindustry organizations were based outside the United States. During the interval period, 52 percent of the 5307 trials registered by these 1167 data providers were conducted outside the United States, as compared with 21 percent of the 249 trials registered by this sort of provider before May 20, 2005.
Study 2: Intervention Name Field
The Intervention Name field was completed with a specific entry in 100 percent of the nonindustry records at both time points. The percentage of industry records with a nonspecific entry dropped from 10 percent to 2 percent during the study period (Table 2Table 2
Number and Disposition of Records from Industry Providers for Interventional Trials with Nonspecific Entries in the “Intervention Name” Field.). All the nonspecific entries at both time points were attributable to four drug companies: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Lilly. On May 20, 2005, the percentage of trials with nonspecific entries in this field varied from 91 percent (Merck) to 3 percent (Lilly). Between May 20 and October 11, 2005, only two companies, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, created new records with nonspecific intervention names, in 1 percent and 6 percent of their entries, respectively. Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer also added specific information to previously vague entries during the study period; Merck made the most dramatic changes, by reducing their number of nonspecific entries from 91 percent on May 20 to less than 1 percent on October 11 (Table 2). However, on October 11, there were noninformative entries in 21 percent of GlaxoSmithKline records and 11 percent of Pfizer records.Study 3: Primary Outcome Measure Field
Use of the Primary Outcome Measure field was assessed in the interval sample only. Information had been entered in this field in 2033 of 2670 records registered by industry (76 percent) during the study interval. Seventy percent of the records (range, 0 percent to 100 percent) from the top 20 drug companies included information in this field (Table 3Table 3
Use of the “Primary Outcome Measure” Field by 20 Drug Companies from May 20 through October 11, 2005.). The rates of completion of this field were 77 percent for phase 1 studies, 79 percent for phase 2 studies, 76 percent for phase 3 studies, and 65 percent for phase 4 studies (χ2=26.21, with 3 df; P<0.001).The clinical value of the information provided in the Primary Outcome Measure field varied. Table 4Table 4
Attributes of Entries in “Primary Outcome Measure” Field. shows five categories of quality based on the specificity of the information about the primary outcome measure and the inclusion of information about the time it was measured. The 657 phase 2, 3, or 4 records from the top 10 drug companies that had entries in this field were reviewed and assigned to one of these categories. Table 4 shows that 17 percent of the entries were vague, whereas the others had varying degrees of useful information.Discussion
Our findings support the conclusion that ICMJE policy has had an effect on trial-registration practices. Among commercial sponsors, there was an increase in the registration of both IND and non-IND studies. Nonindustry data providers also dramatically changed their registration behavior around the time of the ICMJE deadline. The 73 percent increase in trials registered during this time was associated with a 195 percent increase in the number of data providers from around the world. Since these new providers seem to have registered in order to comply with ICMJE policy, it is likely that they will continue to register trials.
Examination of data-element usage in ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that the act of registration alone is not a good indicator of adherence to registration policies. When trial sponsors have the option of providing information of marginal clinical value in a particular data field, our findings show that some companies provide useful information and others do not. This heterogeneous behavior may indicate varying degrees of comfort with different levels of disclosure. For example, among data elements not examined in this trial, there has been a learning curve, with some companies being slower than others to provide mandatory items such as the name of the sponsor and the location of the trial.25
Completion of the Intervention Name field is mandatory for all trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, but the use of specific terms has not been enforced. We determined that three industry data providers — Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer — used a nonspecific term, such as “investigational drug,” between 29 percent and 91 percent of the time in trials registered as of May 20, 2005. These three companies are ranked in the top five according to volume of U.S. drug sales. Lilly used nonspecific intervention names in 3 of its 96 entries (3 percent). In contrast, other data providers, including 571 other industry providers, entered specific information (either a name or a serial number) in this field in all their records. Between May 20 and October 11, only two drug companies, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, used a nonspecific term in this field, and then only rarely. In addition, many of the previously identified nonspecific records were corrected with the addition of drug names or serial numbers.
Our assessment of the quality of information in the Intervention Name field is limited by our methods. Our search revealed only records that had an easily identified term, such as “investigational drug,” in lieu of a drug name. As a result, entries such as “tyrosine kinase inhibitor” or “antibiotic” were not captured in our search for nonspecific terms. In addition, we were not able to evaluate the degree to which interventions in all groups in a study were delineated. Such information is critical to the full description of a clinical trial. Structures for collecting and monitoring the quality of this information need to be developed.
The Primary Outcome Measure field has been available since October 1, 2004. Before May 20, 2005, this field was commonly left blank by industry and other data providers. Since then, 76 percent of industry records have included an entry in this field, although the percentages vary widely according to company (Table 3). In general, information in this field is more likely to be omitted for phase 4 trials. In addition, the quality and completeness of the entries vary with respect to standard attributes of outcome measures. The attributes presented in Table 4 are consistent with those identified in global standards, such as the Tripartite Harmonised ICH (International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) guideline E326 and the ICMJE statement.8 Although we examined only industry records, the use of this field by all data providers will need to be monitored and discussed. It is not clear how ClinicalTrials.gov can best provide information about outcome measures to the full range of interested parties, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers. In the meantime, more structured guidelines for listing outcome measures might enhance the utility of data in ClinicalTrials.gov and other registries.
Evaluation of compliance with the legal mandate for trial registration, FDAMA 113, shows improving but imperfect compliance on the part of industry.25 Although we cannot judge the degree of compliance with ICMJE policy, which is not legally binding, without knowing the number of clinical trials overall, our data indicate large increases in trial registration from all sectors. Some commercial organizations and other stakeholders note that the mandatory registration of exploratory trials (roughly, phase 1 and 2 trials) and the prospective disclosure of certain data elements, including intervention name and primary outcome measure, raise critical proprietary issues.27 These concerns may explain some of the variations in registration practices that are evident in our data.
Supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We are indebted to Annice M. Bergeris for assistance with sample selection, data analysis, and comments on drafts of the manuscript; to In Hye Cho for assistance with data analysis; and to Drs. Donald A.B. Lindberg and Stephen G. Pauker for review of drafts of the manuscript.
Source Information
From the Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md.
Address reprint requests to Dr. Zarin at the National Library of Medicine, Bldg. 38A, National Institutes of Health, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20894, or at dzarin@mail.nih.gov.
- References
References
1
Missing drug data. Washington Post. June 30, 2004:A20.
2
When drug companies hide data. New York Times. June 6, 2004(Sect 4):12.
3
Dickersin K ,Rennie D . Registering clinical trials. JAMA 2003;290:516-523
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Kennedy D . Clinical trials and public trust. Science 2004;306:1649-1649
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Rennie D . Trial registration: a great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. JAMA 2004;292:1359-1362
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Steinbrook R . Registration of clinical trials -- voluntary or mandatory? N Engl J Med 2004;351:1820-1822
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
De Angelis C ,Drazen JM ,Frizelle FA , et al. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1250-1251
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline8
De Angelis CD ,Drazen JM ,Frizelle FA , et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? -- A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2436-2438
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline9
Evans T ,Gulmezoglu M ,Pang T . Registering clinical trials: an essential role for WHO. Lancet 2004;363:1413-1414
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
AMA recommends that DHHS establish a registry for all U.S. clinical trials. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2004. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13934.html.)
11
PhRMA Clinical Trial Registry proposal. Washington, D.C.: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://www.phrma.org/publications/policy/06.01.2005.1111.cfm.)
12
Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act of 2005. S. 470, introduced in the U.S. Senate on February 28, 2005, by Senators Dodd, Grassley, Johnson, and Wyden.
13
Fair Access to Clinical Trials (FACT) Act of 2005. H.R. 3196, introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 30, 2005, by Representatives Waxman and Markey.
14
Dickersin K ,Davis BR ,Dixon DO , et al. The Society for Clinical Trials supports United States legislation mandating trials registration. Clin Trials 2004;1:417-420
CrossRef | Medline15
Fisher CB. Clinical trials registries and results databases: the Fordham University Summit: New York City, January 10-11, 2005: NY. New York: Fordham Center for Ethics Education, September 2, 2005.
16
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-115, § 113, information program on clinical trials for serious or life-threatening diseases.
17
McCray AT ,Ide NC . Design and implementation of a national clinical trials registry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000;7:313-323
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
McCray AT ,Ide NC ,Loane RR ,Tse T . Strategies for supporting consumer health information seeking. Medinfo 2004;11:1152-115619
Gillen JE ,Tse T ,Ide NC ,McCray AT . Design, implementation and management of a web-based data entry system for ClinicalTrials.gov. Medinfo 2004;11:1466-147020
Bodenreider O . The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32:D267-D270
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Lindberg DA ,Humphreys BL ,McCray AT . The Unified Medical Language System. Methods Inf Med 1993;32:281-291
Web of Science | Medline22
ClinicalTrials.gov. Data element definitions. August 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/definitions.html.)
23
Health IMS. IMS National Sales Perspectives, August 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_73915261_74615336,00.html.)
24
Medical Product Outsourcing. The top 30 global medical device companies: top medical device manufacturers. Ramsey, N.J.: Rodman Publishing, 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://mpo-mag.com/current_issue/feature3.php.)
25
Food and Drug Administration. FDAMA section 113: status report on implementation. August 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://www.fda.gov/oashi/clinicaltrials/section113/113report/.)
26
International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH harmonised tripartite guideline E3: structure and content of clinical study reports. November 1995. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://www.ich.org/MediaServer.jser?@_ID=479&@_MODE=GLB.)
27
European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Joint position on the disclosure of clinical trial information via clinical trial registries and databases. January 2005. (Accessed December 5, 2005, at http://129.35.73.130/wps/PA_1_0_J0/FINAL%20Position%20Clinical%20Trials%20Information%20January%2005.pdf.)
- Citing Articles (64)
Citing Articles
1
Dina Roumiantseva, Simona Carini, Ida Sim, Todd H. Wagner. (2013) Sponsorship and design characteristics of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Contemporary Clinical Trials
CrossRef2
Ann Hayes, Jackie Hunter. (2012) Why is publication of negative clinical trial data important?. British Journal of Pharmacology 167:7, 1395-1397
CrossRef3
Elizabeth Wager. (2012) Publication ethics: whose problem is it?. Insights: the UKSG journal 25:3, 294-299
CrossRef4
Kaitlin Greene, Robert H. Dworkin, Michael C. Rowbotham. (2012) A snapshot and scorecard for analgesic clinical trials for chronic pain: The RReACT database. PAIN 153:9, 1794-1797
CrossRef5
Clara Pérez-Mañá, Carola Llonch, Magí Farré. (2012) Transparencia en la investigación clínica: registro de los ensayos clínicos y publicación de resultados. Medicina Clínica
CrossRef6
Holly N. Smith, Mohit Bhandari, Nizar N. Mahomed, Meryam Jan, Rajiv Gandhi. (2012) Comparison of Arthroplasty Trial Publications After Registration in ClinicalTrials.gov. The Journal of Arthroplasty 27:7, 1283-1288
CrossRef7
Cécile Pino, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud. (2012) Inadequate description of educational interventions in ongoing randomized controlled trials. Trials 13:1, 63
CrossRef8
June Raine. Official regulation of medicines. In: Clinical Pharmacology. Elsevier, 2012:62-68.
CrossRef9
Michael J. Fredrickson, Brian M. Ilfeld. (2011) Prospective Trial Registration for Clinical Research. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine 36:6, 619-624
CrossRef10
Ole Dahl Rasmussen, Nikolaj Malchow-Møller, Thomas Barnebeck Andersen. (2011) Walking the talk: the need for a trial registry for development interventions. Journal of Development Effectiveness1-18
CrossRef11
Olaf M. Dekkers, Darius Soonawala, Jan P. Vandenbroucke, Matthias Egger. (2011) Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64:9, 1034-1038
CrossRef12
Udaya K Ranawaka, Colvin Goonaratna. (2011) The Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry - Moving forward. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 4:3, 179-181
CrossRef13
Rafael Dal-Ré. (2011) Early phase drugs and biologicals clinical trials on worldwide leading causes of death: a descriptive analysis. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 67:6, 563-571
CrossRef14
Fabrice Andre, Lisa M. McShane, Stefan Michiels, David F. Ransohoff, Douglas G. Altman, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Daniel F. Hayes, Lajos Pusztai. (2011) Biomarker studies: a call for a comprehensive biomarker study registry. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 8:3, 171-176
CrossRef15
Joel Lexchin. (2011) Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications. Science and Engineering Ethics
CrossRef16
Michael O'Kelly, Steven A. Julious, Stephen Pyke, Simon Day, Sue Todd, Jorgen Seldrup, James Matcham. (2011) Making available information from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry: some current practices. Pharmaceutical Statistics 10:1, 60-69
CrossRef17
Rajiv Gandhi, Meryam Jan, Holly N Smith, Nizar N Mahomed, Mohit Bhandari. (2011) Comparison of published orthopaedic trauma trials following registration in Clinicaltrials.gov. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12:1, 278
CrossRef18
D. Estrin, I. Sim. (2010) Open mHealth Architecture: An Engine for Health Care Innovation. Science 330:6005, 759-760
CrossRef19
Matthias Dahm, Paula González, Nicolás Porteiro. (2010) Implementing registries and results databases of clinical trials: is there a side effect?. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 10:3, 247-251
CrossRef20
Ana Macura, Iosief Abraha, Jamie Kirkham, Gian Franco Gensini, Lorenzo Moja, Alfonso Iorio. (2010) Selective outcome reporting: telling and detecting true lies. The state of the science. Internal and Emergency Medicine 5:2, 151-155
CrossRef21
D. N. Lathyris, N. A. Patsopoulos, G. Salanti, J. P. A. Ioannidis. (2010) Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. European Journal of Clinical Investigation 40:2, 172-182
CrossRef22
Matthias Dahm, Paula González, Nicolás Porteiro. (2009) Trials, tricks and transparency: How disclosure rules affect clinical knowledge
. Journal of Health Economics 28:6, 1141-1153
CrossRef23
Gary D. Novack. (2009) Clinical Trial Registry—Update. The Ocular Surface 7:4, 212-214
CrossRef24
C. Pandolfini, M. Bonati. (2009) Children’s presence in research. A review of online registers. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 65:9, 873-880
CrossRef25
George F. Borm, A. Rogier T. Donders. (2009) Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62:8, 825-830.e10
CrossRef26
S.-W. Guo, L. Hummelshoj, D. L. Olive, S. E. Bulun, T. M. D'Hooghe, J. L.H. Evers. (2009) A call for more transparency of registered clinical trials on endometriosis. Human Reproduction 24:6, 1247-1254
CrossRef27
G. Antes, G. Dreier, H. Hasselblatt, A. Blümle, M. Schumacher. (2009) Register für klinische Studien. Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 52:4, 459-462
CrossRef28
Diana M. Bowman, Karinne Ludlow. (2009) Filling the Information Void: Using Public Registries as a Tool in Nanotechnologies Regulation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6:1, 25-36
CrossRef29
Prathap Tharyan. (2009) Prospective Registration of Clinical Trials in India: Strategies, Achievements & Challenges. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine 2:1, 19-28
CrossRef30
Massimo Antonelli, Giovanna Mercurio. (2009) Reporting, access, and transparency: Better infrastructure of clinical trials. Critical Care Medicine 37:Supplement, S178-S183
CrossRef31
George F. Borm, Martin den Heijer, Gerhard A. Zielhuis. (2009) Publication bias was not a good reason to discourage trials with low power. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62:1, 47-53.e3
CrossRef32
Khaled El Emam, Elizabeth Jonker, Margaret Sampson, Karmela Krleža-Jerić, Angelica Neisa. (2009) The Use of Electronic Data Capture Tools in Clinical Trials: Web-Survey of 259 Canadian Trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research 11:1, e8
CrossRef33
Edward Abraham. (2009) Better infrastructure: Industry–academia partnerships—A marriage of convenience?. Critical Care Medicine 37:Supplement, S159-S164
CrossRef34
Robert M. Califf. Clinical Trials. In: Clinical and Translational Science. Elsevier, 2009:13-37.
CrossRef35
Alexander C. Tsai. (2008) Significance of Findings in Aripiprazole for Treatment of Psychoses in Alzheimer Dementia. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 16:7, 613
CrossRef36
Ida Sim. (2008) Trial Registration for Public Trust: Making the Case for Medical Devices. Journal of General Internal Medicine 23:S1, 64-68
CrossRef37
Peter N. Bennett, Morris J. Brown. Official regulation of medicines. In: Clinical Pharmacology. Elsevier, 2008:61-68.
CrossRef38
Richard T Johnson, Kay Dickersin. (2007) Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins. Nature Clinical Practice Neurology 3:11, 590-591
CrossRef39
Lisa N. Abaid, David A. Grimes, Kenneth F. Schulz. (2007) Reducing publication bias of prospective clinical trials through trial registration. Contraception 76:5, 339-341
CrossRef40
Gary D. Novack. (2007) Clinical Trial Registration. The Ocular Surface 5:4, 316-317
CrossRef41
Masamitsu Yanada, Hiroto Narimatsu, Takeshi Suzuki, Keitaro Matsuo, Tomoki Naoe. (2007) Randomized controlled trials of treatments for hematologic malignancies. Cancer 110:2, 334-339
CrossRef42
Laine, Christine, , Horton, Richard, , DeAngelis, Catherine D., , Drazen, Jeffrey M., , Frizelle, Frank A., , Godlee, Fiona, , Haug, Charlotte, , Hébert, Paul C., , Kotzin, Sheldon, , Marusic, Ana, , Sahni, Peush, , Schroeder, Torben V., , Sox, Harold C., , Weyden, Martin B. Van Der, , Verheugt, Freek W.A., . (2007) Clinical Trial Registration — Looking Back and Moving Ahead. New England Journal of Medicine 356:26, 2734-2736
Free Full Text43
Christine Laine, Richard Horton, Catherine D DeAngelis, Jeffrey M Drazen, Frank A Frizelle, Fiona Godlee, Charlotte Haug, Paul C Hébert, Sheldon Kotzin, Ana Marusic, Peush Sahni, Torben V Schroeder, Harold C Sox, Martin B Van Der Weyden, Freek WA Verheugt. (2007) Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead. The Lancet 369:9577, 1909-1911
CrossRef44
Lisa N. Abaid, David A. Grimes, Kenneth F. Schulz. (2007) Reducing Publication Bias Through Trial Registration. Obstetrics & Gynecology 109:6, 1434-1437
CrossRef45
Albert J. Allen. (2007) Commentary by a Child Psychiatrist in Industry on the Assessment of Drug Safety. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 17:3, 288-291
CrossRef46
He Yu. (2007) A review of international clinical trial registration. Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine 5:3, 234-242
CrossRef47
Richard Hall, Cecilia Antueno, Adam Webber. (2007) Publication bias in the medical literature: A review by a Canadian research ethics board. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie 54:5, 380-388
CrossRef48
R.D. Quain, K.A. Katz. (2007) Characteristics and completeness of clinical trial registrations in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. British Journal of Dermatology 156:1, 106-110
CrossRef49
W.H. Frishman. (2007) Reported Outcomes in Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials Funded by For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Organizations: 2000–2005. Yearbook of Medicine 2007, 391-392
CrossRef50
Fernando Alfonso, Javier Segovia, Magda Heras, Javier Bermejo. (2006) Publicación de ensayos clínicos en revistas científicas: consideraciones editoriales. Revista Española de Cardiología 59:11, 1206-1214
CrossRef51
David B. Resnik. (2006) Openness versus Secrecy in Scientific Research. Episteme 2:03, 135-147
CrossRef52
J.P. Lott, K.A. Katz. (2006) Pharmaceutical companies' policies and practices regarding prospective registration of dermatology-related clinical trials. British Journal of Dermatology 155:3, 635-638
CrossRef53
Ruth L. Mitchell, Angela C. Webster, Jonathan C. Craig. (2006) Cochrane Renal Group Report. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 47:4, 686-691
CrossRef54
Joyce A. Generali. (2006) Hospital Pharmacy Pulse - Recent Publications on Medications and Pharmacy. Hospital Pharmacy 41:4, 385-390
CrossRef55
(2006) Clinical Trials Report Card. New England Journal of Medicine 354:13, 1426-1429
Free Full Text56
Jim Giles. (2006) Drug trials: Stacking the deck. Nature 440:7082, 270-272
CrossRef57
Meredith Wadman. (2006) Verdict on clinical trials registries? Good, but must do better. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5:3, 175-176
CrossRef58
(2006) News In Brief. Nature Medicine 12:2, 157-157
CrossRef59
Tom Valeo. (2006) ON FDA POLICY ON ANTIPSYCHOTICS AND OTHER DRUGS, EXPERTS SAY ‘SHOW US THE DATA’. Neurology 6:4, 20-21
CrossRef60
Lisa Askie, Davina Ghersi, John Simes. (2006) Prospective registration of clinical trials. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 52:4, 237-239
CrossRef61
Keith W. Cogdill. Progress in Health Sciences Librarianship: 1970–2005. Emerald (MCB UP ), 2006:145-177.
CrossRef62
Karmela Krlea-Jerić. (2006) Author's Reply. PLoS Medicine 3:3, e167
CrossRef63
Haug, Charlotte, Gøtzsche, Peter C., Schroeder, Torben V., . (2005) Registries and Registration of Clinical Trials. New England Journal of Medicine 353:26, 2811-2812
Free Full Text64
Drazen, Jeffrey M., Wood, Alastair J.J., . (2005) Trial Registration Report Card. New England Journal of Medicine 353:26, 2809-2811
Free Full Text
- Letters
