Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2025 article

Public availability of randomized clinical trial protocols: a repeated meta-research study

1Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
11Institutions déclarées
6Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : ch, ca, hu, us, de, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Making protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) publicly available is important for the trustworthiness and quality of medical research. In a previous study assessing 326 RCTs with ethical approval in 2012, only 36% had a publicly available protocol. We aimed to generate current evidence on the availability of RCT protocols and to evaluate changes over time. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a representative sample of RCTs approved in 2016 in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom, we investigated the number of available protocols by searching PubMed, Google Scholar, trial registries, and Google. Up to June 2024, we systematically searched for (i) protocols available as peer-reviewed publications, (ii) protocols attached to trial registries, and (iii) protocols shared with result publications of RCTs. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association of protocol availability with trial characteristics such as sample size, drug vs nondrug interventions, multicenter vs single-center status, and RCT approval in 2016 vs 2012. RESULTS: Of the 347 included RCTs, 228 (66%) had an available protocol. Forty-three percent (150/347) of the protocols were available as files on trial registries, 26% (91/347) as supplementary material to result publication, and 23% (81/347) as peer-reviewed publications. Protocol availability improved over time in industry trials (83.4% in 2016 vs 34.6% in 2012). Protocol availability for nonindustry trials remained low (46.4% 2016 vs 38.1% 2012). Multicenter trials (206/256; 77.7% vs single-center trials 22/82; 26.8%) and larger sample size (>500 participants 68/77; 88.3%, 100-500 participants 131/191; 68.6%, <100 participants 29/79; 36.7%) showed higher protocol availability. CONCLUSION: The availability of protocols increased in RCTs approved in 2016 compared to RCTs from 2012. This was mainly driven by industry sponsored trials. Efforts to further improve protocol availability should be continued, especially in nonindustry sponsored RCTs.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
Public availability of randomized clinical trial protocols: a repeated meta-research study
Date Crossref
01/09/2025
Éditeur
Elsevier BV
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Les institutions déclarées

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Ethics in Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical industry and healthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.