Deborah A Zarin1, Tony Tse, Nicholas C Ide. 1. Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md 20894, USA. dzarin@mail.nih.gov
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. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
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. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Authors: Catherine De Angelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-09-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kay Dickersin; Barry R Davis; Dennis O Dixon; Stephen L George; Barbara S Hawkinse; John Lachin; Peter Peduzzi; Stuart Pocock Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Catherine D De Angelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Harold C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-05-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ana Macura; Iosief Abraha; Jamie Kirkham; Gian Franco Gensini; Lorenzo Moja; Alfonso Iorio Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Daniel K Benjamin; Philip Brian Smith; M Dianne Murphy; Rosemary Roberts; Lisa Mathis; Debbie Avant; Robert M Califf; Jennifer S Li Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: 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 W A Verheugt Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-06-04
Authors: 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 W A Verheugt Journal: CMAJ Date: 2007-06-04 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Christine Laine; Richard Horton; Catherine D DeAngelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Fiona Godlee; Charlotte Haug; Paul C Hébert; Sheldon Kotzin; Ana Marusić; Peush Sahni; Torben V Schroeder; Harold C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden; Freek W A Verheugt Journal: Croat Med J Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.351
Authors: Sun-Wei Guo; Lone Hummelshoj; David L Olive; Serdar E Bulun; Thomas M D'Hooghe; Johannes L H Evers Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 6.918