Cited by 838Research Data Management PracticesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

The ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database — Update and Key Issues

Open access
Zarin, Deborah A., Tse, Tony, Williams, Rebecca J., Califf, Robert M., Ide, Nicholas C.·2011·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry was expanded in 2008 to include a database for reporting summary results. We summarize the structure and contents of the results database, provide an update of relevant policies, and show how the data can be used to gain insight into the state of clinical research. METHODS: We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov data that were publicly available between September 2009 and September 2010. RESULTS: As of September 27, 2010, ClinicalTrials.gov received approximately 330 new and 2000 revised registrations each week, along with 30 new and 80 revised results submissions. We characterized the 79,413 registry and 2178 results of trial records available as of September 2010. From a sample cohort of results records, 78 of 150 (52%) had associated publications within 2 years after posting. Of results records available publicly, 20% reported more than two primary outcome measures and 5% reported more than five. Of a sample of 100 registry record outcome measures, 61% lacked specificity in describing the metric used in the planned analysis. In a sample of 700 results records, the mean number of different analysis populations per study group was 2.5 (median, 1; range, 1 to 25). Of these trials, 24% reported results for 90% or less of their participants. CONCLUSIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov provides access to study results not otherwise available to the public. Although the database allows examination of various aspects of ongoing and completed clinical trials, its ultimate usefulness depends on the research community to submit accurate, informative data.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa1012065

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ClinicalTrials.gov is the largest register and comprises most oral health trial protocols (71%).

    “We searched ClinicalTrials.gov because it is the largest register and comprises most oral health trial protocols (71%) (Zarin et al. 2011; Smaïl-Faugeron et al. 2015).”

    From Nonpublication and Selective Outcome Reporting of Oral Health Trials (2023) · cites this paper as Zarin et al. 2011

    The Description of ClinicalTrials.gov identifies it as a registry of trial protocols, and the paper reports 79,413 registry records as of September 2010. It does not establish that it was the largest registry or report that it contained 71% of oral-health trial protocols (searched: largest, oral health, dental, 71%). (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Up to 38% of trials defined multiple primary outcomes.

    “Although up to 38% of trials defined multiple primary outcomes,249 250 251 252”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [9]Communication from the Commission regarding the guideline on the data fields contained in the clinical trials database provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2001/20/EC to be included in the database on medicinal products provided for in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 European Commission, ed Official Journal of the European Union 2008 2008/C 168/02
  2. [10]Guidance on the information concerning paediatric clinical trials to be entered into the EU Database on Clinical Trials (EudraCT) and on the information to be made public by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), in accordance with Article 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 European Commission, ed Official Journal of the European Union 2009 2009/C 28/01
  3. [13]International Conference on Harmonisation. Technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use: tripartite harmonized ICH guideline E3: structure and content of clinical study reports http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy-guidelines.html

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zarin, D. A., Tse, T., Williams, R. J., Califf, R. M., & Ide, N. C.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2011-03-03
Volume
364
Issue
9
Pages
852-860
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1993595811
Cited by
838
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 74 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 51
FWCI
164.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 LM999999)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (ZIALM008926)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
ClinicalTrials.gov, clinical trial registries, clinical trial registration, time to publication, outcome measures, data quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, National Library of Medicine (U.S.), Public Policy, Quality Control, Registries, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Databases, Factual, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Government Regulation, Information Dissemination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review