Publicly available continuously updated topic specific databases of randomised clinical trials: A scoping review
Boesen, K.; Hemkens, L. G.; Janiaud, P.; Hirt, J.
Show abstract
Conducting systematic reviews of clinical trials is arduous and resource consuming. One potential solution is to design databases that are continuously and automatically populated with clinical trial data from harmonised and structured datasets. We aimed to map publicly available, continuously updated, topic-specific databases of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the preprint servers medRxiv, ArXiv, and Open Science Framework, and Google. We described seven features (access model, database architecture, data input sources, retrieval methods, data extraction methods, trial presentation, and export options) and narratively summarised the results. We did not register a protocol for this review. We identified 14 continuously updated clinical trial databases, seven related to COVID-19 (first active in 2020) and seven non-COVID databases (first active in 2009). All databases, except one, were publicly funded and accessible without restrictions. They mainly employed methods similar to those from static article-based systematic reviews and retrieved data from journal publications and trial registries. The COVID-19 databases and some non-COVID databases implemented semi-automated features of data import, which combined automated and manual data curation, whereas the non-COVID databases mainly relied on manual workflows. Most reported information was metadata, such as author names, years of publication, and link to publication or trial registry. Two databases included trial appraisal information (risk of bias assessments). Six databases reported aggregate group level results, but only one database provided individual participant data on request. We identified few continuously updated trial databases, and existing initiatives mainly employ methods known from static article -based reviews. The main limitation to create truly live evidence synthesis is the access and import of machine-readable and harmonised clinical trial data.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 96%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 97%
- Multicenter preclinical studies as an innovative method to enhance translation: a systematic review of published studies 91%
- Preclinical systematic review of CCR5 antagonists as cerebroprotective and stroke recovery enhancing agents 89%
"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.