IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0185886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Second thoughts on the final rule: An analysis of baseline participant characteristics reports on ClinicalTrials.gov

Author

Listed:
  • Amos Cahan
  • Vibha Anand

Abstract

Background: ClinicalTrials.gov is valuable for aggregate-level analysis of trials. The recently published final rule aims to improve reporting of trial results. We aimed to assess variability in ClinicalTirals.gov records reporting participants’ baseline measures. Methods and findings: The September 2015 edition of the database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), was used in this study. To date, AACT contains 186,941 trials of which 16,660 trials reporting baseline (participant) measures were analyzed. We also analyzed a subset of 13,818 Highly Likely Applicable Clinical Trials (HLACT), for which reporting of results is likely mandatory and compared a random sample of 30 trial records to their journal articles. We report counts for each mandatory baseline measure and variability reporting in their formats. The AACT dataset contains 8,161 baseline measures with 1206 unique measurement units. However, of these 6,940 (85%) variables appear only once in the dataset. Age and Gender are reported using many different formats (178 and 49 respectively). “Age” as the variable name is reported in 60 different formats. HLACT subset reports measures using 3,931 variables. The most frequent Age format (i.e. mean (years) ± sd) is found in only 45% of trials. Overall only 4 baseline measures (Region of Enrollment, Age, Number of Participants, and Gender) are reported by > 10% of trials. Discrepancies are found in both the types and formats of ClinicalTrials.gov records and their corresponding journal articles. On average, journal articles include twice the number of baseline measures (13.6±7.1 (sd) vs. 6.6±7.6) when compared to the ClinicalTrials.gov records that report any results. Conclusions: We found marked variability in baseline measures reporting. This is not addressed by the final rule. To support secondary use of ClinicalTrials.gov, a uniform format for baseline measures reporting is warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Amos Cahan & Vibha Anand, 2017. "Second thoughts on the final rule: An analysis of baseline participant characteristics reports on ClinicalTrials.gov," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-9, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185886
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185886
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185886&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0185886?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0185886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.