ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Improving Trial Informativeness: A Rapid Review of Global Research on How to Ensure Trials Are Useful.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Machine Learning Classifiers in Rapid Reviews for Health Research: A Case Example Using EPPI-Reviewer.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- International Stakeholder Guidance for Improving Informativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleRandomised controlled trials are considered the 'gold standard' in clinical research and decision-making. However, many trials have significant flaws that current review processes fail to identify early enough for corrections to be made. Flaws in trial design, conduct and reporting ultimately lead to research waste. This rapid review provides insights from global research aimed at improving trial 'informativeness' as described by Zarin and colleagues.
methodsA rapid review was conducted with a focus on research addressing trial design processes that might improve informativeness aligned with one or more of the five key conditions outlined by Zarin and colleagues: 1) Importance, 2) Design, 3) Feasibility, 4) Integrity and 5) Reporting. A further thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12.
resultsThe final review includes 42 texts. Of the 27 recommended processes or actions to improve trial informativeness, most were relevant to the second condition of trial design (2) Design; 44%). A key recommendation was the use of 'tools' to enhance trial informativeness. A total of 23 tools were identified across the conditions of 1) Importance (17%), 2) Design (74%) and 5) Reporting (9%).
conclusionThis review highlights how a better understanding of design processes that lead to informative trials can reduce or eliminate research waste. Further research is needed on how these processes can better support pre-funding peer review, which would also increase the likelihood of producing informative trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.