Reporting Discrepancies Between the ClinicalTrials.gov Results Database and Peer-reviewed Publications
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Background: ClinicalTrials.gov requires reporting of result summaries for many drug and device trials.
Purpose: To evaluate the consistency of reporting of trials that are registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and published in the literature.
Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matched publications identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and a manual search of 2 electronic databases.
Study Selection: 10% random sample of phase 3 or 4 trials with results in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, completed before 1 January 2009, with 2 or more groups.
Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data about trial design and results from the results database and matching publications. A subsample was independently verified.
Data Synthesis: Of 110 trials with results, most were industry-sponsored, parallel-design drug studies. The most common inconsistency was the number of secondary outcome measures reported (80%). Sixteen trials (15%) reported the primary outcome description inconsistently, and 22 (20%) reported the primary outcome value inconsistently. Thirty-eight trials inconsistently reported the number of individuals with a serious adverse event (SAE); of these, 33 (87%) reported more SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the 84 trials that reported SAEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, 11 publications did not mention SAEs, 5 reported them as zero or not occurring, and 21 reported a different number of SAEs. Among 29 trials that reported deaths in ClinicalTrials.gov, 28% differed from the matched publication.
Limitation: Small sample that included earliest results posted to the database.
Conclusion: Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and matching publications are common. Which source contains the more accurate account of results is unclear, although ClinicalTrials.gov may provide a more comprehensive description of adverse events than the publication.
Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
He Z, Yang L, Li X, Du J EClinicalMedicine. 2025; 80:103066.
PMID: 39963161 PMC: 11831125. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.103066.
An analysis of controlled human infection studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Toomey D, Adams-Phipps J, Wilkinson J, Pietro J, Littman J, Kamenicek S BMJ Open. 2025; 15(2):e085250.
PMID: 39920069 PMC: 11808890. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-085250.
Boyne N, Duke A, Rea J, Khan A, Young A, Van Vleet J BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):33.
PMID: 39915715 PMC: 11800428. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02486-5.
Protocol publication rate and comparison between article, registry and protocol in RCTs.
Mathieu S, Bouillon-Minois J, Renard Triche L, Coudeyre E, Ingrid D, Thomas F BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):31.
PMID: 39893396 PMC: 11786558. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02471-y.
Discordant Information on Blinding in Trial Registries and Published Research: A Systematic Review.
Zhang F, Zhu Y, Zhao S, Zhang Q, Tao H, Wu Y JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(12):e2452274.
PMID: 39724369 PMC: 11672156. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52274.