Objective To estimate the frequency with which results of large randomized clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov are not available to the public. Design Cross sectional analysisSetting Trials with at least 500 participants that were prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov and completed prior to January 2009. Data sourcesPubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase were searched to identify published manuscripts containing trial results. The final literature search occurred in November 2012. Registry entries for unpublished trials were reviewed to determine whether results for these studies were available in the ClinicalTrials.gov results database. Main outcome measuresThe frequency of non-publication of trial results and, among unpublished studies, the frequency with which results are unavailable in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. ResultsOf 585 registered trials, 171 (29%) remained unpublished. These 171 unpublished trials had an estimated total enrollment of 299 763 study participants. The median time between study completion and the final literature search was 60 months for unpublished trials. Non-publication was more common among trials that received industry funding (150/468, 32%) than those that did not (21/117, 18%), P=0.003. Of the 171 unpublished trials, 133 (78%) had no results available in ClinicalTrials.gov.Conclusions Among this group of large clinical trials, non-publication of results was common and the availability of results in the ClinicalTrials.gov database was limited. A substantial number of study participants were exposed to the risks of trial participation without the societal benefits that accompany the dissemination of trial results. IntroductionRandomized clinical trials are a critical means of advancing medical knowledge. Clinical trials depend on the willingness of participants to expose themselves to the risks of randomization, blinding, and unproven interventions. The ethical justification for these risks is that society will eventually benefit from the knowledge gained from the trial.1 Because the risks involved in trial participation may be significant, and because individual trial participants often do not benefit directly from trial participation, substantial safeguards have been implemented to protect the interests of study participants both prior to and during the trial.2 These safeguards take multiple forms, including oversight by institutional review boards, the informed consent process, and data and safety monitoring boards. Until recently, the protection of the interests of study participants after trial completion has received significantly less emphasis. This began to change in 1997 with the signing of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act in the United States, which mandated that the US Department of Health and Human Services establish a registry of clinical trials, thereby providing permanent, public access to information on the conduct of both publicly and privately funded clinical trials. In 2005 the International Committee of Medical...

Background Early administration of convalescent plasma obtained from blood donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may prevent disease progression in acutely ill, high-risk patients with Covid-19. Methods In this randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial, we assigned patients who were being treated in an emergency department for Covid-19 symptoms to receive either one unit of convalescent plasma with a high titer of antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or placebo. All the patients were either 50 years of age or older or had one or more risk factors for disease progression. In addition, all the patients presented to the emergency department within 7 days after symptom onset and were in stable condition for outpatient management. The primary outcome was disease progression within 15 days after randomization, which was a composite of hospital admission for any reason, seeking emergency or urgent care, or death without hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the worst severity of illness on an 8-category ordinal scale, hospital-free days within 30 days after randomization, and death from any cause. Results A total of 511 patients were enrolled in the trial (257 in the convalescent-plasma group and 254 in the placebo group). The median age of the patients was 54 years; the median symptom duration was 4 days. In the donor plasma samples, the median titer of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies was 1:641. Disease progression occurred in 77 patients (30.0%) in the convalescent-plasma group and in 81 patients (31.9%) in the placebo group (risk difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% credible interval, −6.0 to 9.8; posterior probability of superiority of convalescent plasma, 0.68). Five patients in the plasma group and 1 patient in the placebo group died. Outcomes regarding worst illness severity and hospital-free days were similar in the two groups. Conclusions The administration of Covid-19 convalescent plasma to high-risk outpatients within 1 week after the onset of symptoms of Covid-19 did not prevent disease progression. (SIREN-C3PO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04355767 .)

BackgroundClinical trial registries can improve the validity of trial results by facilitating comparisons between prospectively planned and reported outcomes. Previous reports on the frequency of planned and reported outcome inconsistencies have reported widely discrepant results. It is unknown whether these discrepancies are due to differences between the included trials, or to methodological differences between studies. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence and nature of discrepancies between registered and published outcomes among clinical trials.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, and checked references of included publications to identify studies that compared trial outcomes as documented in a publicly accessible clinical trials registry with published trial outcomes. Two authors independently selected eligible studies and performed data extraction. We present summary data rather than pooled analyses owing to methodological heterogeneity among the included studies.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion. The overall risk of bias among included studies was moderate to high. These studies assessed outcome agreement for a median of 65 individual trials (interquartile range [IQR] 25–110). The median proportion of trials with an identified discrepancy between the registered and published primary outcome was 31 %; substantial variability in the prevalence of these primary outcome discrepancies was observed among the included studies (range 0 % (0/66) to 100 % (1/1), IQR 17–45 %). We found less variability within the subset of studies that assessed the agreement between prospectively registered outcomes and published outcomes, among which the median observed discrepancy rate was 41 % (range 30 % (13/43) to 100 % (1/1), IQR 33–48 %). The nature of observed primary outcome discrepancies also varied substantially between included studies. Among the studies providing detailed descriptions of these outcome discrepancies, a median of 13 % of trials introduced a new, unregistered outcome in the published manuscript (IQR 5–16 %).ConclusionsDiscrepancies between registered and published outcomes of clinical trials are common regardless of funding mechanism or the journals in which they are published. Consistent reporting of prospectively defined outcomes and consistent utilization of registry data during the peer review process may improve the validity of clinical trial publications.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adverse posttraumatic neuropsychiatric sequelae (APNS) are common among civilian trauma survivors and military veterans. These APNS, as traditionally classified, include posttraumatic stress, post-concussion syndrome, depression, and regional or widespread pain. Traditional classifications have come to hamper scientific progress because they artificially fragment APNS into siloed, syndromic diagnoses unmoored to discrete components of brain functioning and studied in isolation. These limitations in classification and ontology slow the discovery of pathophysiologic mechanisms, biobehavioral markers, risk prediction tools, and preventive/ treatment interventions. Progress in overcoming these limitations has been challenging, because such progress would require studies that both evaluate a broad spectrum of posttraumatic sequelae (to overcome fragmentation) and also perform in-depth biobehavioral evaluation (to index sequelae to domains of brain function). This article summarizes the methods of the Advancing Understanding of RecOvery afteR traumA (AURORA) Study. AURORA conducts a large scale (n = 5,000 target sample) in-depth assessment of APNS development using a state-of-the-art battery of self-report, neurocognitive, physiologic, digital phenotyping, psychophysical, neuroimaging, and genomic assessments, beginning in the early aftermath of trauma and continuing for one year. The goals of AURORA are to achieve improved phenotypes, prediction tools, and understanding of molecular mechanisms to inform the future development and testing of preventive and treatment interventions.

A single hsTnT level less than 6 ng/L was associated with a markedly decreased risk of AMI, while serial levels at 19 ng/L or less identified patients at less than 1% risk of 30-day ACE.