Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research

Update on the clinical trial landscape: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov registration data, 2000–2020

Authors: Gillian Gresham, Jill L. Meinert, Arthur G. Gresham, Steven Piantadosi, Curtis L. Meinert

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The clinical trial landscape has evolved over the last two decades, shaped by advances in therapeutics and drug development and innovation in trial design and methods. The tracking of such changes became possible with trial registration, providing the public with a window into the massive clinical research enterprise. The ClinicalTrials.gov website was launched in 2000 by the NIH National Library of Medicine and is the largest clinical trial registry worldwide. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the composition and methodologic features of clinical trials as registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and to identify trends over time.

Methods

We analyzed data from the publicly available Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database, focusing on trials (interventional studies) started between 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2020. Characteristics of design (e.g., phase, randomization, use of masking, number of treatment groups, sample size), eligibility criteria (age groups, gender), interventions, conditions, and funders (primary sponsor) were tabulated over time, by year trial started.

Results

There were 274,043 registered interventional studies (trials) included in the analysis. Most trials were reported as randomized (65%); single site (60%); parallel-group (56%); funded by other sources (e.g., individuals, universities, and community-based organizations) (65%); and involving drug interventions (55%). Notable trends include an increase in the proportion of registered trials without FDA-defined phases (“Phase N/A”) over time, a decrease in proportion of trials that involve drugs or report treatment as a primary purpose, declining sample size and time to complete trials, and an increase in proportion of trials reporting results among completed trials. The proportion of missing registration fields has also decreased over time and more trials make protocols and other documents available. There is a current need to expand the registration fields in ClinicalTrials.gov to adapt to the evolving trial designs and reduce the number of trials categorized as “other.” Observed trends may be explained by changes in trial regulations as well as expanding and evolving trial designs, interventions, and outcome types.

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration has transformed how trial information is accessed, disseminated, and used. As clinical trials evolve and regulations change, trial registries, including ClinicalTrials.gov, will continue to provide a means to access and follow trials over time, thus informing future trial design and highlighting the value of this tremendous resource.
Literature
2.
go back to reference De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. International committee of medical journal editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. CMAJ. 2004;171(06):606–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. International committee of medical journal editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. CMAJ. 2004;171(06):606–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. Hoboken: Wiley; 2017. Piantadosi S. Clinical trials: a methodologic perspective. Hoboken: Wiley; 2017.
18.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Meas. 2018;9:353.CrossRef Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Meas. 2018;9:353.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Zagadailov E, Fine M, Shields A. Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(5):264–74.PubMedPubMedCentral Zagadailov E, Fine M, Shields A. Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(5):264–74.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Chen CE, Harrington RA, Desai SA, Mahaffey KW, Turakhia MP. Characteristics of digital health studies registered in ClinicalTrials. gov. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(6):838–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chen CE, Harrington RA, Desai SA, Mahaffey KW, Turakhia MP. Characteristics of digital health studies registered in ClinicalTrials. gov. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(6):838–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Park ER, Chiles C, Cinciripini PM, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telehealth research in cancer prevention and care: a call to sustain telehealth advances. Cancer. 2021;127(3):334–8.PubMedCrossRef Park ER, Chiles C, Cinciripini PM, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on telehealth research in cancer prevention and care: a call to sustain telehealth advances. Cancer. 2021;127(3):334–8.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Metadata
Title
Update on the clinical trial landscape: analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov registration data, 2000–2020
Authors
Gillian Gresham
Jill L. Meinert
Arthur G. Gresham
Steven Piantadosi
Curtis L. Meinert
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06569-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Trials 1/2022 Go to the issue