Trends and landscape of cardiovascular disease studies characteristics on ClinicalTrials.gov from 2012 to 2021
Rawlley, B.; Bansal, K.; Dayal, U.; Julka, D.; Salooja, I.; Cordova Sanchez, A.; Gupta, K.; Kumar, S.; Chaudhuri, D.
Show abstract
IntroductionTo analyze cardiovascular disease (CVD) studies from the United States registered on ClinicalTrials.gov focusing on characteristics associated with their external validity; the presence of Data Monitoring Committee/Data Safety Monitoring Board (DMC/DSMB), randomization, blinding, and gender of the principal investigators (PIs). MethodsWe queried the Application Programming Interface (API) of ClinicalTrials.gov to extract data on characteristics of the identified studies, most notably, DMC/DSMB status, Design Allocation, Design masking, and gender of PIs. ResultsWe identified 536 studies pertinent to CVD for this analysis. Out of 536, 471 (88%) were interventional studies (Clinical trials) and 65 (12%) were observational studies with interventions. Amongst these, 261 (49%) reported having a DMC, 312 (66%) reported randomization, 224 (48%) reported masking and 122 (19%) of the PIs were women. No trend was seen in the annual proportion of studies with DMC, randomization, masking, and women as PIs (P-trend > 0.05 for all). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were notable for higher odds of DMC (aOR, 5.28; 95% CI, 2.70 - 10.90; P < 0.05) and blinding (aOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.29 - 4.64; P < 0.05) in NIH-funded studies and higher odds of being terminated/suspended or withdrawn in basic science studies (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.07 - 6.90; P < 0.05). No relation was seen between any characteristics and the study being completed. ConclusionsWe report on the absence of DMCs, randomization, blinding, women as PIs, and lack of cross-gender collaboration in the leadership of CVD studies without any favorable trend over the past decade. This calls for comprehensive efforts to improve these trends and ultimately, the external validity of studies. We also call for an overhaul of the definition of the phase of a clinical trial that centers around a drug being the intervention.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
- The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials 94%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Laboratory-confirmed respiratory viral infection triggers for acute myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review protocol 94%
- The protective association between statins use and adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
- Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 93%
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 93%
- The IGNITE Trial: Participant Recruitment Lessons Prior to SARS-CoV-2 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 95%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.