Characteristics of randomised trials on diseases in the digestive system registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a retrospective analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wildt S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3211057 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Characteristics of randomised trials on diseases in the digestive system registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: a retrospective analysis.
Wildt Signe S Krag Aleksander A Gluud Liselotte L
BMJ open 20110101 2
Objectives To evaluate the adequacy of reporting of protocols for randomised trials on diseases of the digestive system registered in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and the consistency between primary outcomes, secondary outcomes and sample size specified in http://ClinicalTrials.gov and published trials. Methods Randomised phase III trials on adult patients with gastrointestinal diseases registered before January 2009 in http://ClinicalTrials.gov were eligible for inclusion. From http://ClinicalTri ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe development of mobile health (mHealth) technologies is progressing at a faster pace than that of the science to evaluate their validity and efficacy. Under the International Committee of Journal Medical Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, clinical trials that prospectively assign people to interventions should be registered with a database before the initiation of the study.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to better understand the smartphone mHealth trials for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions registered on ClinicalTrials.gov through November 2018, including the number, types, and characteristics of the studies being conducted; the frequency and timing of any outcome changes; and the reporting of results.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov for the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions and prespecified terms related to mHealth. According to the 2016 World Health Organization Global Burden of Disease Study, the top 10 most disabling neuropsychiatric conditions are (1) stroke, (2) migraine, (3) major depressive disorder, (4) Alzheimer disease and other dementias, (5) anxiety disorders, (6) alcohol use disorders, (7) opioid use disorders, (8) epilepsy, (9) schizophrenia, and (10) other mental and substance use disorders. There were no date, location, or status restrictions.ResultsOur search identified 135 studies. A total of 28.9% (39/135) of studies evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder, 14.1% (19/135) of studies evaluated interventions for alcohol use disorders, 12.6% (17/135) of studies evaluated interventions for stroke, 11.1% (15/135) of studies evaluated interventions for schizophrenia, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for anxiety disorders, 8.1% (11/135) of studies evaluated interventions for other mental and substance use disorders, 7.4% (10/135) of studies evaluated interventions for opioid use disorders, 3.7% (5/135) of studies evaluated interventions for Alzheimer disease or other dementias, 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for epilepsy, and 3.0% (4/135) of studies evaluated interventions for migraine. The studies were first registered in 2008; more than half of the studies were registered from 2016 to 2018. A total of 18.5% (25/135) of trials had results reported in some publicly accessible location. Across all the studies, the mean estimated enrollment (reported by the study) was 1078, although the median was only 100. In addition, across all the studies, the actual reported enrollment was lower, with a mean of 249 and a median of 80. Only about a quarter of the studies (35/135, 25.9%) were funded by the National Institutes of Health.ConclusionsDespite the increasing use of health-based technologies, this analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov suggests that only a few apps for high-burden neuropsychiatric conditions are being clinically evaluated in trials.
| S-EPMC7473471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described.MethodsClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries.ResultsA total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41).ConclusionsA minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.
| S-EPMC7586939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trials have been criticized on various counts. Any attempt to improve how trials are conducted or reported requires--amongst other things--an understanding of the number, the nature and the location of those that sponsor them or collaborate on them. Here we sought to identify the nature and location of each sponsor/collaborator.Methods and findingsWe examined the 'sponsor/collaborator' field for the 69,160 drug trials that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov over a 9-year period (2005-2014). Of the 12,823 unique sponsors, 56% had sponsored only one and 27% had sponsored 2-5 trials each. Just 18% were involved with six or more trials each, and we have (arbitrarily) labeled these organizations as 'more experienced' in sponsoring/collaborating on trials. These 18% (2,266 sponsors/collaborators) were analyzed further: (a) 951 were corporate organizations and (b) 1,145 were non-corporates (including 31 individuals) with (c) 170 unclassified. Further, we identified the location of each organization in (a) and (b).ConclusionsClinical trials are an important part of a nation's research endeavors, and ultimately contribute to the health of its people. Thus, understanding the clinical trial landscape--including the number and nature of sponsors, and how active they are--is important for every country. We believe that policy makers in particular should be interested in this study to understand the current situation, and to use the numbers as a baseline for the evolving landscape, to assess the impact of their strategies in future.
| S-EPMC4757412 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Interventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old population have arisen much attention in recent years, however, little is known about the characteristics of registered clinical trials regarding this field. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of registered interventional trials for infectious diseases in old populations on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed. We used viral OR bacterial OR fungal OR parasitic OR infectious disease to search the ClinicalTrials.gov database and to assess characteristics of included trials. The age of participants was restricted to more than 65 years old. All analyses were performed using the SPSS19.0 software. Results:A total of 138 registered trials were included. Among them, 105(76.1%) trials were completed; however, the results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov for only 44(31.9%) trials. North America was the most frequently identified study location (52.9%), followed by Europe (30.4%) and Asia (11.6%). Seventy-one percent trials focused on viral pathogens, followed by bacterial pathogens (22.5%). A total of 84.1% trials were prevention oriented. A total of 84.1% trials used randomization, 73.2% trials used parallel assignment, and 64.5% used masking. Eighty-six trials were industry-funded and 52 were non-industry-funded. Industry-funded trials had higher percentages than non-industry-funded trials in available results, prevention trial, and phase 2 and phase 3 trial, and lager sample size trial. One hundred eleven trials were vaccine trials and 27 trials were non-vaccine trials. Vaccine trials had higher percentages than non-vaccine trials in available results, leading industry sponsor and viral etiology. Conclusions:The current study is the first study of the landscape of interventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old populations registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing the basis for treatment and prevention of infectious diseases in old populations. Trials in this field are still relatively lacking, and additional and better trials are needed.
| S-EPMC7333184 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To describe the conditions studied, interventions used, study characteristics, and funding sources of otolaryngology clinical trials from the ClinicalTrials.gov database; compare this otolaryngology cohort of interventional studies to clinical visits in a health care system; and assess agreement between clinical trials and clinical activity.Database analysis.Trial registration data downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov and administrative data from the Duke University Medical Center from October 1, 2007 to September 27, 2010.Data extraction from ClinicalTrials.gov was done using MeSH and non-MeSH disease condition terms. Studies were subcategorized to create the following groupings for descriptive analysis: ear, nose, allergy, voice, sleep, head and neck cancer, thyroid, and throat. Duke Health System visits were queried by using selected ICD-9 codes for otolaryngology and non-otolaryngology providers. Visits were grouped similarly to ClinicalTrials.gov for further analysis. Chi-square tests were used to explore differences between groups.A total of 1115 of 40,970 registered interventional trials were assigned to otolaryngology. Head and neck cancer trials predominated. Study models most frequently incorporated parallel design (54.6%), 2 study groups (46.6%), and randomization (69.1%). Phase 2 or 3 studies constituted 46.4% of the cohort. Comparison of the ClinicalTrials.gov database with administrative health system visit data by disease condition showed discordance between national research activity and clinical visit volume for patients with otolaryngology complaints.Analysis of otolaryngology-related clinical research as listed in ClinicalTrials.gov can inform patients, physicians, and policy makers about research focus areas. The relative burden of otolaryngology-associated conditions in our tertiary health system exceeds research activity within the field.
| S-EPMC4121965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The registry ClinicalTrials.gov was created to provide investigators and patients an accessible database of relevant clinical trials.To understand the state of sickle cell disease clinical trials, a comprehensive review of all 174 "closed," "interventional" sickle cell trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov was completed in January 2015.The majority of registered sickle cell disease clinical trials listed an academic center as the primary sponsor and were an early phase trial. The primary outcome for sickle cell disease trials focused on pain (23%), bone marrow transplant (BMT) (13%), hydroxyurea (8%), iron overload (8%), and pulmonary hypertension (8%). A total of 52 trials were listed as terminated or withdrawn, including 25 (14% of all trials) terminated for failure to enroll participants. At the time of this review, only 19 trials uploaded results and 29 trials uploaded a manuscript in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. A systematic review of pubmed.gov revealed that only 35% of sickle cell studies completed prior to 2014 resulted in an identified manuscript. In comparison, of 80 thalassemia trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, four acknowledged failure to enroll participants as a reason for trial termination or withdrawal, and 48 trials (60%) completed prior to 2014 resulted in a currently identified manuscript.ClinicalTrials.gov can be an important database for investigators and patients with sickle cell disease to understand the current available research trials. To enhance the validity of the website, investigators must update their trial results and upload trial manuscripts into the database. This study, for the first time, quantifies outcomes of sickle cell disease trials and provides support to the belief that barriers exist to successful completion, publication, and dissemination of sickle cell trial results.
| S-EPMC4643416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results.Results231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%-24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%-80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%-44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P?=?0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P?=?0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001).ConclusionsIn this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.
| S-EPMC3253780 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.
| S-EPMC10638853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: This study aimed to analyze the characteristics and reasons of early discontinuation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: OCD trials and relevant publications were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, respectively. The characteristics and details regarding the timely publication of trials were recorded. Cox regression analysis was used to explore factors associated with the early discontinuation of OCD trials. Results: The analysis included 298 OCD therapy trials. Most investigations recruited <100 patients and were more likely to involve adults. Of all OCD studies identified, 67.8% were randomized and 61.4% were blind (single- or double-blind). Universities and hospitals were recorded as the two primary locations in the majority of trials. A total of 155 trials (52%) were completed; however, only 29% of those were published. Of the published trials, >70% were published at least 1 year after completion. Behavioral therapy trials were the most common type of major treatment-aimed OCD trials (39%), followed by drug trials (35.1%) and device/procedure trials (24.7%). The univariate Cox regression analysis indicated that drug trials [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-5.43], absence of collaborators (HR = 3.87, 95% CI: 1.62-9.26), and sponsorship by industry (HR = 3.97, 95% CI: 1.49-10.53) were risk factors for early discontinuation of OCD trials. Further multivariate Cox regression showed that drug trials (HR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.71-9.08) and absence of collaborators (HR = 5.17, 95% CI: 1.97-13.54) were independent risk factors for early trial discontinuation of OCD trials. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Non-drug trials (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.21-9.11), absence of collaborators (OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.10-9.60), and non-blinded trials (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 1.05-26.2) were independent risk factors for unreported results in registry. Conclusion: The diagnosis and prevention of OCD are rarely investigated in trials. Underreporting and delayed reporting remain major problems. The type of intervention and participation of collaborators are associated with early discontinuation of OCD trials.
| S-EPMC8350037 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Investigators of clinical trials in which the list of outcomes include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) - usually labeled quality of life (QoL) - have a large number of instruments from which to choose. The extent and manner in which PRO instruments are used in clinical trials can be assessed using data from clinical trial registries. Most medical journals now require a clinical trial be registered before its results are considered for publication. This requirement is intended to discourage publication bias, such as the reporting of tests of hypotheses different from those stipulated at the start of the trial and selective reporting of partial results.To assess the usage of PRO instruments in registered trials by various trial characteristics and to determine if the instruments are adequately identified in the registry.A local copy of the ClinicalTrials.gov database was made in September 2007. The outcomes of all interventional trials registered since September 2004 were assessed for usage of a PRO instrument. Odds ratios of PRO usage were estimated by a logistic regression model.Of 17,704 interventional trials, 2481 (14.0%) used at least one PRO instrument. However, less than half of those trials (41.0%) identified the instrument to be used. PRO usage is positively associated with phase (III), randomization type (randomized), intervention type (behavior) and sponsorship type (university/research organization).PRO instruments are used in a significant percentage but minority of clinical trials. Trial registries should require that all PRO instruments be identified, including the concepts or outcomes they are intended to measure.
| S-EPMC2683916 | biostudies-other