The Epistemonikos Database of Trials: A Comprehensive and Freely Accessible Bibliographic Source of Randomized Trials in Health
Rada, G.; Avila-Oliver, C.; Ramos-Rojas, J. T.; Vasquez-Laval, J.; Vergara, C.; Cantor-Cruz, F.; Rojas-Gomez, A. M.; Veloso, V.; Bosio, C.; Bignon, M.; Pinto, S.; Silva, I.; Zambrano-Achig, P.; Fernandez-Sandoval, S.; Jara, I.; Nava-Mosler, D.; Verdugo-Paiva, F.; Pena, J.; Novillo, F.; Silva-Zapata, A.; Biscay, D.
Show abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare, providing the most reliable means of assessing the efficacy and safety of health interventions. However, their rapidly growing volume and dispersion across diverse sources, such as bibliographic databases, preprint servers, and trial registries, pose major challenges for evidence synthesis, clinical guideline development, and health technology assessment. Despite longstanding recognition of their importance and multiple initiatives to improve accessibility, there is still no comprehensive, freely available, and continuously updated resource of trial records. To address this gap, the Epistemonikos Foundation developed the Epistemonikos Database of Trials (ED-Trials), a continuously updated repository of RCTs identified from more than 30 sources, including bibliographic databases, preprint servers, international trial registries, and other search sources. This paper describes the methods used to identify and classify trial records, outlines the key features of the search interface, and reports the database status as of October 2025. ED-Trials now includes more than 1.5 million unique trial records, many of which are not indexed in MEDLINE or other conventional bibliographic databases. It represents a significant scholarly and technical achievement, offering a freely accessible and user-friendly resource that enables more efficient, comprehensive, and up-to-date identification of randomized controlled trials, thereby strengthening the foundation of evidence-based healthcare.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 96%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 96%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 96%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 96%
- Evaluation of SURUS: a Named Entity Recognition System to Extract Knowledge from Interventional Study Records 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 96%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 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.