The Results Database - Update and Key Issues

Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 55.87). 03/2011; 364(9):852-60. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012065
Source: PubMed


The trial registry was expanded in 2008 to include a database for reporting summary results. We summarize the structure and contents of the results database, provide an update of relevant policies, and show how the data can be used to gain insight into the state of clinical research.
We analyzed data that were publicly available between September 2009 and September 2010.
As of September 27, 2010, received approximately 330 new and 2000 revised registrations each week, along with 30 new and 80 revised results submissions. We characterized the 79,413 registry and 2178 results of trial records available as of September 2010. From a sample cohort of results records, 78 of 150 (52%) had associated publications within 2 years after posting. Of results records available publicly, 20% reported more than two primary outcome measures and 5% reported more than five. Of a sample of 100 registry record outcome measures, 61% lacked specificity in describing the metric used in the planned analysis. In a sample of 700 results records, the mean number of different analysis populations per study group was 2.5 (median, 1; range, 1 to 25). Of these trials, 24% reported results for 90% or less of their participants. provides access to study results not otherwise available to the public. Although the database allows examination of various aspects of ongoing and completed clinical trials, its ultimate usefulness depends on the research community to submit accurate, informative data.

Full-text preview

Available from:
    • "Further, a review of the results from published trials that were registered in suggests that most deviated from the preregistered plan of analysis in metric, method of aggregation, or timing of primary outcome measures employed, and the majority of studies (69%) failed to include all participants in the final published analyses (Zarin et al., 2011). No study has explicitly examined discrepancies from trial registration in reporting alcohol treatment trials, but it is likely to be similarly problematic. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD. This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials. Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods. The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies. Copyright © 2015 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.
    Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research 08/2015; 39(9). DOI:10.1111/acer.12797 · 3.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Analysis and clustering of transcription factor binding site profiles is performed with the use of JASPAR (Bryne et al., 2008), and access to orthology information and clinical trials is given by the ENSEMBL (Vilella et al., 2009) and (Zarin et al., 2011) resources, respectively. Finally, patent information is collected from the EPO Proteins (, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The iterative process of finding relevant information in biomedical literature and performing bioinformatics analyses might result in an endless loop for an inexperienced user, considering the exponential growth of scientific corpora and the plethora of tools designed to mine PubMed(®) and related biological databases. Herein, we describe BioTextQuest(+), a web-based interactive knowledge exploration platform with significant advances to its predecessor (BioTextQuest), aiming to bridge processes such as bioentity recognition, functional annotation, document clustering and data integration towards literature mining and concept discovery. BioTextQuest(+) enables PubMed and OMIM querying, retrieval of abstracts related to a targeted request and optimal detection of genes, proteins, molecular functions, pathways and biological processes within the retrieved documents. The front-end interface facilitates the browsing of document clustering per subject, the analysis of term co-occurrence, the generation of tag clouds containing highly represented terms per cluster and at-a-glance popup windows with information about relevant genes and proteins. Moreover, to support experimental research, BioTextQuest(+) addresses integration of its primary functionality with biological repositories and software tools able to deliver further bioinformatics services. The Google-like interface extends beyond simple use by offering a range of advanced parameterization for expert users. We demonstrate the functionality of BioTextQuest(+) through several exemplary research scenarios including author disambiguation, functional term enrichment, knowledge acquisition and concept discovery linking major human diseases, such as obesity and ageing. Availability: The service is accessible at Contact: or Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
    Bioinformatics 08/2014; 30(22). DOI:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu524 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "database by the NIH. The creation of this database is itself part of policy initiatives aiming at regulating the controversial domain of clinical research, marred by accusations of conflicts of interest, publication bias, etc. Unsurprisingly, the database itself has run into trouble, due to criticism about its incomplete coverage, failure to include relevant information, and lack of standardization, which in turn has led to additional policy initiatives (compulsory registration of trials if results are to be published, etc.) (Zarin et al. 2011). In spite of all these problems that complicate its appropriation for our own purposes, the database offers the advantage of assembling in a single virtual space entities such as clinical researchers, molecules (drugs), the institutions performing the trial, public organizations (oncology networks), commercial organizations (pharmaceutical and biotech companies), diseases, technologies, and publications. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We presently witness a profound transformation of the configuration of biomedical practices, as characterized by an increasingly collective dimension, and by a growing reliance on disruptive technologies that generate large amounts of data. We also witness a proliferation of biomedical databases, often freely accessible on the Web, which can be easily analyzed thanks to network analysis software. In this position paper we discuss how science and technology studies (S&TS) may cope with these developments. In particular, we examine a number of shortcomings of the notion of networks, namely those concerning: (a) the relation between agency and structural analysis; (b) the distinction between network clusters and collectives; (c) the (ac)counting strategies that fuel the networking approach; and (d) the privileged status ascribed to textual documents. This will lead us to reframe the question of the relations between S&TS and biomedical scientists, as big data offer an interesting opportunity for developing new modes of cooperation between the social and the life sciences, while avoiding the dichotomies – between the social and the cognitive, or between texts and practices – that S&TS has successfully managed to discard.
Show more