4.8 Article

Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.Gov between May and October 2005

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 353, 期 26, 页码 2779-2787

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa053234

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 LM999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据