RATIONALE: ClinicalTrials.gov is the largest trial registry in the world. Strengthened registration requirements, including federal mandates in 2007, have increased study representation. A systematic evaluation of all registered studies has been limited by the absence of an aggregate data set and specialty-specific search terms. OBJECTIVES: We leveraged a newly transformed database containing annotated data from ClinicalTrials.gov to define the portfolio of interventional clinical research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. METHODS: Analysis was restricted to studies registered after September 2007 through September 2010 and defined as "interventional" (n = 40,970). A specialty-specific study data set (n = 2,226) was created using disease condition terms provided by data submitters and medical subject heading terms generated by a National Library of Medicine algorithm. Trial characteristics were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine trials composed 5.4% of all interventional studies registered over the 3-year period. In contrast, oncology and cardiovascular disease composed 21.9 and 8.4% of trials, respectively. Within pulmonary trials, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most studied conditions (27.4 and 21.8% of studies, respectively), and measures of lung function or safety were the most frequent primary outcomes. Nearly two-thirds of trials indicated enrollment of 100 patients or fewer, and a majority of studies were phase II or III trials. The single largest funding source (43.5%) was industry, and study characteristics varied by funding source. CONCLUSIONS: We applied a novel approach to describe the portfolio of interventional clinical research in pulmonary medicine. Our results indicate a disparity between trial representation and the burden of respiratory disease. Resources should be targeted across the spectrum of pulmonary research to address this discrepancy.
RATIONALE: ClinicalTrials.gov is the largest trial registry in the world. Strengthened registration requirements, including federal mandates in 2007, have increased study representation. A systematic evaluation of all registered studies has been limited by the absence of an aggregate data set and specialty-specific search terms. OBJECTIVES: We leveraged a newly transformed database containing annotated data from ClinicalTrials.gov to define the portfolio of interventional clinical research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. METHODS: Analysis was restricted to studies registered after September 2007 through September 2010 and defined as "interventional" (n = 40,970). A specialty-specific study data set (n = 2,226) was created using disease condition terms provided by data submitters and medical subject heading terms generated by a National Library of Medicine algorithm. Trial characteristics were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine trials composed 5.4% of all interventional studies registered over the 3-year period. In contrast, oncology and cardiovascular disease composed 21.9 and 8.4% of trials, respectively. Within pulmonary trials, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most studied conditions (27.4 and 21.8% of studies, respectively), and measures of lung function or safety were the most frequent primary outcomes. Nearly two-thirds of trials indicated enrollment of 100 patients or fewer, and a majority of studies were phase II or III trials. The single largest funding source (43.5%) was industry, and study characteristics varied by funding source. CONCLUSIONS: We applied a novel approach to describe the portfolio of interventional clinical research in pulmonary medicine. Our results indicate a disparity between trial representation and the burden of respiratory disease. Resources should be targeted across the spectrum of pulmonary research to address this discrepancy.
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: Robert M Califf; Deborah A Zarin; Judith M Kramer; Rachel E Sherman; Laura H Aberle; Asba Tasneem Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bradford R Hirsch; Robert M Califf; Steven K Cheng; Asba Tasneem; John Horton; Karen Chiswell; Kevin A Schulman; David M Dilts; Amy P Abernethy Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Bruce C Marshall; Chris M Penland; Leslie Hazle; Melissa Ashlock; Diana Wetmore; Preston W Campbell; Robert J Beall Journal: Respir Care Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 2.258
Authors: Isaretta L Riley; L Ebony Boulware; Jie-Lena Sun; Karen Chiswell; Loretta G Que; Monica Kraft; Jamie L Todd; Scott M Palmer; Monique L Anderson Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Matthew J Burke; Michael Fralick; Nasrin Nejatbakhsh; Maria C Tartaglia; Charles H Tator Journal: Brain Inj Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 2.311