ArticleTrials2025
Registration and reporting of clinical trials affiliated with California universities and with primary completion date from 2014 to 2017.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublic information on US clinical trials is shared through the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. This study's goal was to determine prospective registration, results reporting, trial registration number reporting, and publication accessibility status for trials with primary completion dates from 2014 to 2017 affiliated with seven California universities.
methodsWe identified trials with investigators, sponsors, or responsible parties affiliated with seven California universities and searched for their results publications manually. We then used semi-automatic methods to determine prospective registration, summary results reporting in a registry, publication status, and reporting of registration numbers in the abstract and the full text of manuscripts.
resultsWe identified 1091 unique trials. Most trials were single-center (n = 752, 69%) and had a median of 50 participants (IQR 21 to 150). Overall, 64% of trials (n = 698) were prospectively registered, 46% (n = 500) had summary results reported in the registry, 69% (n = 750) had results published as articles, and an additional 3% (n = 36) as abstracts or posters. Results reporting (summary, articles, abstracts or posters) occurred for 58% of trials (n = 637) within 2 years, and for 81% (n = 888) within 5 years of the study's primary completion date. Of journal publications, 77% (n = 579) were open access publications, 37% (n = 276) had trial registration numbers listed in their abstract, and 45% (n = 336) in the manuscript. Only 92 (8%) of these trials were legally required to report results, and only 2 (2%) of those were overdue and under the primary responsibility of a California university to report.
conclusionsAlmost one fifth of clinical trials with primary completion dates from 2014 to 2017 with investigators, sponsors or responsible parties affiliated with seven California biomedical research universities lacked any results reporting 5 years after their primary completion, and only 58% reported results within 2 years. Even though a large majority of these trials were completed before US legal mandates for reporting, there was an ethical requirement that the burden to research participants should be commensurate with the scientific value of the research. Research has no public scientific value if its results are not reported.
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.