Assessing Compliance with Reporting Requirements in European Phase II to IV Clinical Trials: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study
Bruckner, T.; Dike, C. E.; Caquelin, L.; Freeman, A.; Aspromonti, D. A.; DeVito, N.; Song, Z.; Karam, G.; Nilsonne, G.
Show abstract
Objectives: To assess the availability of key clinical trial registration data and compliance with legal reporting requirements for all Phase 2-4 drug trials registered on the new European Clinical Trial Information System (CTIS) registry. This study is the first ever assessment of data quality and legal compliance with reporting requirements on CTIS. Design: Cross-sectional observational study of CTIS registry data combined with manual review of results documents. Setting: Cohort of all 7,547 Phase II-IV clinical trials registered on CTIS as of November 2025. Main outcome measures: Number and proportion of missing data points in CTIS registration data. Proportion of completed clinical trials that are compliant with regulatory reporting requirements. Results: Trial registration data quality was high overall with more than 99% of expected data present. Of 234 clinical trials legally required to report results, fewer than half (49.6%) fully reported results within the required timeframe, 20 trials (8.5%) fully reported results late, and 98 trials (41.9%) failed to fully report results. Legal compliance was similar for adult trials (79/158) and paediatric trials (37/76). Conclusions: Sponsor compliance with legal reporting requirements is weak. Current efforts by European regulators to monitor and enforce compliance appear to be insufficient. New results reporting functions currently being set up by trial registries worldwide will require quality assurance processes. Trial registration: Study protocol prospectively registered on OSF: https://osf.io/sn4j2/overview
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 97%
- Number of Interventional Clinical Trials Registered per Million Population per Country Worldwide 94%
- Registration, Publication, and Outcome Reporting among Pivotal Clinical Trials that Supported FDA Approval of High-Risk Medical Devices Before and After FDAAA 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 97%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 95%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 98%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence Supporting EMA Drug Approvals (2020-2023): A Cross-Sectional Study of Trial Design and Outcomes 94%
- Design and implementation of the multi-arm, multi-stage Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 (TICO) platform master protocol: An Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) initiative 92%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 96%
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 95%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
"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.