ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Evaluating the current landscape of clinical trials registration and results reporting policies, procedures and staffing at US-based academic centers: Survey revisited.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Historically US-based academic organizations dedicated limited resources, including policies, personnel to ensuring compliance with clinical trials registration and results reporting requirements. A recent follow-up survey finds that 6-years after an initial survey, there is increased attention and dedication of resources to improve compliance rates for clinical trials registration and results reporting. Methods: Internet-based online survey using Qualtrics between 20 April 2023 and 30 September 2023 distributed to Protocol Registration and Results Reporting (PRS) Administrators at US-based academic organizations with ClinicalTrials.gov organizational accounts. The survey focused on the 249 respondents of the original 2016-2017 survey published in 2018. The overall response rate was 162/249 (65.06%) with 100% participation from National Cancer Center (NCI) Designated Cancer Centers and hubs of the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Results: Results indicated a marked increase of academic organizations with policies in place for registration (43 to 74%) and results reporting (35 to 68%). The median number of Full-time Equivalent (FTE) staff at responding academic organizations increased (from 0.08 to 0.5) with statistically significant difference between the number of organizational records and FTEs supporting registration and results reporting. Larger gains are seen with NCI-Designated Cancer Centers and/or CTSA hubs. Conclusions: It appears academic organizations are more equipped to comply with requirements, and demonstrate a trend towards appropriate staffing. In the 6 years since the original survey, US-based academic organizations have significantly increased attention to compliance with clinical trials registration and results reporting requirements, indicated by an increase in institutional policies and dedicated personnel.
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.