Cargando…
Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis
OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the recruitment status listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as compared with the actual trial status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Random sample of interventional phase 2–4 clinical trials registered between 2010 and 2012 on ClinicalTrials.gov. PRIMARY...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652524/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29025842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017719 |
_version_ | 1783273074043387904 |
---|---|
author | Jones, Christopher W Safferman, Michelle R Adams, Amanda C Platts-Mills, Timothy F |
author_facet | Jones, Christopher W Safferman, Michelle R Adams, Amanda C Platts-Mills, Timothy F |
author_sort | Jones, Christopher W |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the recruitment status listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as compared with the actual trial status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Random sample of interventional phase 2–4 clinical trials registered between 2010 and 2012 on ClinicalTrials.gov. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: For each trial which was listed within ClinicalTrials.gov as ongoing, two investigators performed a comprehensive literature search for evidence that the trial had actually been completed. For each trial listed as completed or terminated early by ClinicalTrials.gov, we compared the date that the trial was actually concluded with the date the registry was updated to reflect the study’s conclusion status. RESULTS: Among the 405 included trials, 92 had a registry status indicating that study activity was either ongoing or the recruitment status was unknown. Of these, published results were available for 34 (37%). Among the 313 concluded trials, the median delay between study completion and a registry update reflecting that the study had ended was 141 days (IQR 48–419), with delays of over 1 year present for 29%. In total, 125 trials (31%) either had a listed recruitment status which was incorrect or had a delay of more than 1 year between the time the study was concluded and the time the registry recruitment status was updated. CONCLUSIONS: At present, registry recruitment status information in ClinicalTrials.gov is often outdated or wrong. This inaccuracy has implications for the ability of researchers to identify completed trials and accurately characterise all available medical knowledge on a given subject. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5652524 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56525242017-10-27 Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis Jones, Christopher W Safferman, Michelle R Adams, Amanda C Platts-Mills, Timothy F BMJ Open Research Methods OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the recruitment status listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as compared with the actual trial status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Random sample of interventional phase 2–4 clinical trials registered between 2010 and 2012 on ClinicalTrials.gov. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: For each trial which was listed within ClinicalTrials.gov as ongoing, two investigators performed a comprehensive literature search for evidence that the trial had actually been completed. For each trial listed as completed or terminated early by ClinicalTrials.gov, we compared the date that the trial was actually concluded with the date the registry was updated to reflect the study’s conclusion status. RESULTS: Among the 405 included trials, 92 had a registry status indicating that study activity was either ongoing or the recruitment status was unknown. Of these, published results were available for 34 (37%). Among the 313 concluded trials, the median delay between study completion and a registry update reflecting that the study had ended was 141 days (IQR 48–419), with delays of over 1 year present for 29%. In total, 125 trials (31%) either had a listed recruitment status which was incorrect or had a delay of more than 1 year between the time the study was concluded and the time the registry recruitment status was updated. CONCLUSIONS: At present, registry recruitment status information in ClinicalTrials.gov is often outdated or wrong. This inaccuracy has implications for the ability of researchers to identify completed trials and accurately characterise all available medical knowledge on a given subject. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-10-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5652524/ /pubmed/29025842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017719 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Research Methods Jones, Christopher W Safferman, Michelle R Adams, Amanda C Platts-Mills, Timothy F Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title | Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_full | Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_fullStr | Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_short | Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_sort | discrepancies between clinicaltrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis |
topic | Research Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5652524/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29025842 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017719 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT joneschristopherw discrepanciesbetweenclinicaltrialsgovrecruitmentstatusandactualtrialstatusacrosssectionalanalysis AT saffermanmicheller discrepanciesbetweenclinicaltrialsgovrecruitmentstatusandactualtrialstatusacrosssectionalanalysis AT adamsamandac discrepanciesbetweenclinicaltrialsgovrecruitmentstatusandactualtrialstatusacrosssectionalanalysis AT plattsmillstimothyf discrepanciesbetweenclinicaltrialsgovrecruitmentstatusandactualtrialstatusacrosssectionalanalysis |