Literature DB >> 22550198

Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010.

Robert M Califf1, Deborah A Zarin, Judith M Kramer, Rachel E Sherman, Laura H Aberle, Asba Tasneem.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Recent reports highlight gaps between guidelines-based treatment recommendations and evidence from clinical trials that supports those recommendations. Strengthened reporting requirements for studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov enable a comprehensive evaluation of the national trials portfolio.
OBJECTIVE: To examine fundamental characteristics of interventional clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.
METHODS: A data set comprising 96,346 clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov was downloaded on September 27, 2010, and entered into a relational database to analyze aggregate data. Interventional trials were identified and analyses were focused on 3 clinical specialties-cardiovascular, mental health, and oncology-that together encompass the largest number of disability-adjusted life-years lost in the United States. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of registered clinical trials as reported data elements in the trial registry; how those characteristics have changed over time; differences in characteristics as a function of clinical specialty; and factors associated with use of randomization, blinding, and data monitoring committees (DMCs).
RESULTS: The number of registered interventional clinical trials increased from 28,881 (October 2004-September 2007) to 40,970 (October 2007-September 2010), and the number of missing data elements has generally declined. Most interventional trials registered between 2007 and 2010 were small, with 62% enrolling 100 or fewer participants. Many clinical trials were single-center (66%; 24,788/37,520) and funded by organizations other than industry or the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (47%; 17,592/37,520). Heterogeneity in the reported methods by clinical specialty; sponsor type; and the reported use of DMCs, randomization, and blinding was evident. For example, reported use of DMCs was less common in industry-sponsored vs NIH-sponsored trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.11; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14), earlier-phase vs phase 3 trials (adjusted OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91), and mental health trials vs those in the other 2 specialties. In similar comparisons, randomization and blinding were less frequently reported in earlier-phase, oncology, and device trials.
CONCLUSION: Clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov are dominated by small trials and contain significant heterogeneity in methodological approaches, including reported use of randomization, blinding, and DMCs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22550198     DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.3424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  156 in total

1.  Clinical trial website struggles to serve as research data hub.

Authors:  Monica Heger
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 53.440

Review 2.  Paediatric cardiovascular clinical trials: an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov and the Food and Drug Administration Pediatric Drug Labeling Database.

Authors:  Kevin D Hill; Heather T Henderson; Christoph P Hornik; Jennifer S Li
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.093

3.  Data informs debate.

Authors:  Elizabeth Roughead
Journal:  Aust Prescr       Date:  2015-04-01

4.  Adaptive pre-specification in randomized trials with and without pair-matching.

Authors:  Laura B Balzer; Mark J van der Laan; Maya L Petersen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  Diagnostic Clinical Trials in Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: Barriers and Innovations.

Authors:  Jawad Fares; Deepak Kanojia; Aida Rashidi; Atique U Ahmed; Irina V Balyasnikova; Maciej S Lesniak
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2019-06-05       Impact factor: 3.225

6.  A method for probing disease relatedness using common clinical eligibility criteria.

Authors:  Mary Regina Boland; Riccardo Miotto; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2013

7.  Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and development.

Authors:  Roderik F Viergever; Robert F Terry; Ghassan Karam
Journal:  Bull World Health Organ       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 9.408

8.  The Pediatric Heart Network Scholar Award programme: a unique mentored award embedded within a multicentre network.

Authors:  L LuAnn Minich; Victoria L Pemberton; Lara S Shekerdemian; Morgan M Millar; Jane W Newburger; Andrew C Glatz; Eric M Graham; Richard J Czosek; Sara K Pasquali; Mike Seed; William L Border
Journal:  Cardiol Young       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 1.093

9.  Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Authors:  Monique L Anderson; Karen Chiswell; Eric D Peterson; Asba Tasneem; James Topping; Robert M Califf
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Targeted therapies in neuroendocrine tumors (NET): clinical trial challenges and lessons learned.

Authors:  James C Yao; Diane Reidy Lagunes; Matthew H Kulke
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2013-04-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.