The ultimate goal of clinical research is to produce evidence that supports clinical and policy decisions. Numerous analyses suggest that a substantial proportion of clinical trials aimed at informing clinical practice are marred by flaws in design, execution, analysis, and reporting (Chalmers et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2014; Fergusson et al., 2005; Glasziou et al., 2014; Ioannidis et al., 2014; Al-Shahi Salman et al., 2014; Yordanov et al., 2018; Yordanov et al., 2015). The initial research response to COVID-19 illustrated the fact that existing oversight mechanisms fail to prevent the initiation of flawed trials (Bugin and Woodcock, 2021). While unexpected events can stymie well-conceived and implemented studies, trials that have features rendering them unlikely to inform clinical practice may do harm by misleading potential participants about their benefits and by diverting patient-participants from otherwise informative research efforts (Zarin et al., 2019).

We have previously described five conditions that trials should fulfill to support clinical or policy decision-making (Zarin et al., 2019; London and Kimmelman, 2020). First, trials must ask an important and clinically relevant question that is not yet resolved. Second, trials must be designed to provide a meaningful answer to that question. Third, trials must be feasible, with achievable enrollment goals and timely primary outcome completion. Fourth, outcomes must be analyzed in ways that support valid interpretation. Last, trial results must be made accessible in a timely fashion.

In what follows, we created surrogate measures for four conditions of informativeness: trial importance, design quality, feasibility, and reporting (the fifth condition, analytical integrity, did not lend itself to objective, dichotomous assessment, and is not assessed below). We then evaluated the proportion of clinically directed randomized trials in three common disease areas meeting these four conditions. Our approach involved a retrospective evaluation of trial informativeness. Findings can help healthcare and research systems identify study types in need of further scrutiny, thereby improving the impact of future research.

Over half of the 125 interventional trials in our cohort were studies of drug or biologic interventions (77 trials; 61.6%). The majority were phase 2 (24 trials, 19.2%) or phase 3 trials (50 trials, 40.0%). Trial status was ‘completed’ in 99 of 125 trials (79.2%) and ‘terminated’ in 15 trials (12.0%) (Table 1). Ninety-three trials (74.4%) were first registered on ClinicalTrials.gov prior to or within 30 days of the listed trial start date.

Our primary outcome, the proportion of trials that informed clinical practice, was 26.4% (95% CI 18.9–35.0) (Figure 1). As a sensitivity analysis, we re-analyzed our primary outcome excluding the 35 trials in the lowest quartile for target enrollment. This resulted in a proportion of informative trials of 35.6% (95% CI 25.7–46.3). We performed a second sensitivity analysis on our primary outcome excluding phase 1/2 and phase 2 trials. This resulted in 30.7% (95% CI 21.9–40.7) of trials meeting four conditions of informativeness.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

A total of 193,839 participants were enrolled in the 125 trials in our cohort, of which 129,973 (67.1%) were enrolled in informative trials. The proportion of ischemic heart disease trials that was informative was 27.5% (95% CI 14.6–43.9); the proportion for diabetes mellitus trials was 31.6% (95% CI 19.9–45.2), and the proportion for lung cancer was 14.3% (95% CI 4.0–32.7) (Figure 2). Proportions did not vary significantly by disease area (p-value = 0.23) (Table 2). Each surrogate measure contributed considerably to the stepwise decline in the proportion of informative trials (Supplementary file 2).

Of the 35 trials not meeting our feasibility condition, 21 failed to reach 85% of planned patient enrollment (Supplementary file 3). Of the nine trials not meeting our reporting condition, six were not subject to FDAAA 801 (U.S. Public Law, 2007a) results reporting requirements (Supplementary file 4). Although we cannot be certain why a trial was not incorporated into a clinical synthesizing document, possible reasons are illustrated by the following examples. For one trial (NCT01104155 – phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer investigating the combination of eribulin mesylate in combination with intermittent erlotinib), increased understanding of the importance of biomarker status in treatment response from trial initiation to completion rendered the results for a non-selected population less clinically relevant (Supplementary file 5; Mok et al., 2014). In another case, trial NCT00918138 investigated the addition of saxagliptin to extended-release metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (Neutel et al., 2013). Its primary outcome, change from baseline in 24-hr mean weighted glucose at week 4, did not meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in a high-quality systematic review (SR) investigating the same topic (Men et al., 2018). In a third case, trial NCT00954707 (a phase 4 trial investigating duration of dual anti-platelet therapy in 2509 individuals undergoing placement of a Cypher cardiac drug eluting stent) sponsors submitted results to ClinicalTrials.gov but never published them. This may have hampered inclusion in a clinical synthesizing document. Out of the 18 trials, 8 trials not meeting the importance condition had no published primary outcome results. Finally, the most common reasons for a high risk of bias (ROB) score in the 30 trials not meeting our design condition were lack of blinding of participants and personnel, and lack of blinding of outcome assessment and selective reporting (Supplementary file 6).

Studies sponsored by industry were significantly more likely to fulfill all four conditions of informativeness than those not sponsored by industry (50.0 vs. 6.0%, p-value <0.001) (Table 2; Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Using the two-sided Fisher’s exact test, there was a non-random association between trial phase and informativeness, and type of intervention and informativeness (Table 2).

This study provides the first assessment of the proportion of randomized trials fulfilling four key conditions of informativeness. In our analysis, just over one-fourth of trials demonstrated adequacy for study feasibility, reporting, importance, and design. The remaining 73.6% contained a limitation in design, conduct, or reporting that compromised their ability to inform clinical decision-making.

Certain shortcomings of clinical trials are a result of experimenting in a dynamic real-world environment and cannot be entirely avoided. Clinical trials are difficult to plan, and there may be defensible reasons for falling short of some conditions. For example, changes in medical practice may render a research question irrelevant to clinical practice; an emerging pandemic might lead to under-recruitment. However, our findings underscore the major challenges sponsors and clinical investigators confront in fulfilling the scientific and ethical warrant for enrolling patient-participants in randomized trials. The goal should be to address foreseeable limitations in trial design, conduct, or reporting. For example, increased oversight by research funders, including requirements for landscape analysis of completed and ongoing clinical trials to ensure trials are addressing important questions, and the provision of independent scientific review to highlight vulnerabilities in trial design (Bierer et al., 2018), are measures that can be implemented to increase the likelihood that trials will be informative. Many methodological weaknesses in trial design can be corrected at minor cost (Yordanov et al., 2015).

The proportion of informative trials did not differ significantly between ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and lung cancer, indicating shared challenges in design, implementation, and reporting. Our study also demonstrated that each condition of informativeness goes unfulfilled in roughly equal proportions (Supplementary file 2), suggesting that vigilance is required throughout the life cycle of a trial. Our estimates for the fraction of studies fulfilling criteria for recruitment feasibility are in line with prior studies (Carlisle et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2011; Korn et al., 2010; Walters et al., 2017). The fraction of trials at low ROB is similar to prior estimates (Yordanov et al., 2015; Ndounga Diakou et al., 2017; Vale et al., 2013). Our estimate for the fraction of studies fulfilling reporting requirements (90.0%) is in line with prior studies that evaluated both ClinicalTrials.gov results deposition and publication (Chen et al., 2016; Phillips et al., 2017), both of which were deemed acceptable means of results reporting in our study. To our knowledge, our study is the first to apply these conditions jointly to a sample of trials, in addition to assessing importance via citation in clinical synthesizing documents.

Our results also indicate that certain types of trials may be at greater risk for having their informativeness compromised. Although there was no significant difference in informativeness observed between our three disease areas, many lung cancer trials were of early phase (46.4% phase 2) and did not meet design criteria due to lack of blinding (Supplementary file 6). We acknowledge that for some of these trials, blinding may have been difficult to achieve but nonetheless would contribute to an elevated ROB. Of note, trials were assessed as ‘low ROB’ if there was no or incomplete blinding, but the outcome was unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding, as per the Cochrane ROB guidelines (Higgins et al., 2011).

Phase 4 trials fared worse than phase 3 trials, with only 2 of 19 fulfilling all four conditions of informativeness (Supplementary file 7). Trials sponsored by industry funders were far more likely to fulfill all four conditions than those with non-industry sponsorship (50.0 vs. 6.0%; Figure 2—figure supplement 1). This is in keeping with prior research demonstrating greater recruitment challenges for non-industry funded trials (Carlisle et al., 2015), in addition to diminished compliance with timely results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov (DeVito et al., 2020).

These results suggest that funding bodies and academic medical centers may not provide adequate resources for fulfilling the clinical mission of the trials they support. Several recent initiatives aim at improving various aspects of informativeness, including increased consideration given to the importance and clinical relevance of the research question, the evidentiary basis for proposed research, study registration and reporting, by many funders (Moher et al., 2016). The implementation of new frameworks, such as INQUIRE, developed to guide academic institutions in addressing waste in research, including assessments of research design, feasibility, transparency, relevance, and internal and external validity, if widely adopted, may lead to further improvements in research quality (von Niederhäusern et al., 2018). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted both the susceptibility of our clinical research enterprise to substandard trials, while also showing what is possible with robust research vetting, coordination, and collaboration (Kimmel et al., 2020).

Our study should be interpreted considering several limitations. First, our measures for each condition of informativeness are proxies for the concepts they represent. For example, scoring trial importance required citation in a clinical synthesizing document. This measure may have erroneously classified some informative trials as at risk of being uninformative (e.g. trials that evaluate disease management in niche populations that are not addressed in practice guidelines or SRs). It may also have misclassified some trials as informative (e.g. trials addressing already resolved clinical hypotheses, which might nevertheless be cited in SRs). To the former, none of the 18 trials not fulfilling the importance condition involved niche populations (Supplementary file 5). We also acknowledge that some trials may inform clinical practice despite failing our criteria. The DAPT Study (NCT00977938) was a large phase 4 study that was deemed at high ROB in several high-quality SRs (Xu et al., 2021; Yin et al., 2019). However, this study has had an important impact on the clinical management of antiplatelet therapy following drug-eluting stent placement (Cutlip and Nicolau, 2020). Our metrics are best understood as capturing factors that seriously (but not necessarily fatally) compromise a trial’s prospects of informing practice and that are rectifiable.

Second, we applied strict inclusion/exclusion criteria when identifying our cohort of clinically directed randomized controlled trials, thus limiting generalizability to other types of trials, including those involving diagnostics, early phase trials, nonrandomized trials or interventions that do not advance to FDA approval. The latter would require different criteria, given their primary goal of informing regulatory or research decision-making. Developing surrogate measures of informativeness for other types of trials represents an avenue for future research.

Third, we used a longitudinal and sequential approach, since some of the conditions were only relevant once others had been met. For example, incorporation into a clinical synthesizing document can only occur once results have been reported. Our sequential approach enabled us to address our primary outcome with an economy of resources. However, our study does not enable an assessment of the proportion of trials fulfilling three of the four criteria in isolation from each other. In addition, changes in research practices or policy occurring over the last decade might produce different estimates for the proportion of randomized trials that are informative.

Fourth, our evaluation is limited by the accuracy of information contained in the ClinicalTrials.gov registration record and in the published literature. The use of other sources of data, such as U.S. FDA regulatory documents, in addition to study protocols and statistical analysis plans uploaded onto ClinicalTrials.gov, could be considered for use in future evaluations of trial informativeness.

Although there is broad agreement that uninformative trials exist, there is no clear consensus on methods to identify which trials are uninformative. Our retrospective assessment is an initial step toward developing prospective criteria that can be used to highlight trials of concern, thereby enabling early corrective intervention.

Trial volunteers are generally told that their participation will advance clinical practice. However, one-third (33%) of patient-participants in our study were enrolled in trials that possessed at least one feature that compromised their goal of informing clinical practice. Sponsors and investigators often face unforeseeable challenges, and trials with flaws in design and implementation occasionally uncover actionable insights. Nevertheless, research systems and oversight should address persistent barriers to fulfilling the societal mission of clinical research.

The data set is available online on Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3EGKU).

1. 1. Hutchinson N
   2. Kimmelman J
   3. Zarin D
   4. Moyer H

   (2022) Open Science Framework

   What fraction of trials inform clinical practice? A longitudinal cohort study of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov.

   https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3EGKU

1. 1. Al-Shahi Salman R
   2. Beller E
   3. Kagan J
   4. Hemminki E
   5. Phillips RS
   6. Savulescu J
   7. Macleod M
   8. Wisely J
   9. Chalmers I

   (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management

   Lancet 383:176–185.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62297-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bierer BE
   2. Strauss DH
   3. White SA
   4. Zarin DA

   (2018) Universal funder responsibilities that advance social value

   The American Journal of Bioethics 18:30–32.

   https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1523498

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bugin K
   2. Woodcock J

   (2021) Trends in COVID-19 therapeutic clinical trials

   Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 20:254–255.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-021-00037-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Carlisle B
   2. Kimmelman J
   3. Ramsay T
   4. MacKinnon N

   (2015) Unsuccessful trial accrual and human subjects protections: an empirical analysis of recently closed trials

   Clinical Trials 12:77–83.

   https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774514558307

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Chalmers I
   2. Bracken MB
   3. Djulbegovic B
   4. Garattini S
   5. Grant J
   6. Gülmezoglu AM
   7. Howells DW
   8. Ioannidis JPA
   9. Oliver S

   (2014) How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set

   Lancet 383:156–165.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Chan AW
   2. Song F
   3. Vickers A
   4. Jefferson T
   5. Dickersin K
   6. Gøtzsche PC
   7. Krumholz HM
   8. Ghersi D
   9. van der Worp HB

   (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research

   Lancet 383:257–266.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chen R
   2. Desai NR
   3. Ross JS
   4. Zhang W
   5. Chau KH
   6. Wayda B
   7. Murugiah K
   8. Lu DY
   9. Mittal A
   10. Krumholz HM

   (2016) Publication and reporting of clinical trial results: cross sectional analysis across academic medical centers

   BMJ 352:i637.

   https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i637

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cheng SK
   2. Dietrich MS
   3. Dilts DM

   (2011) Predicting accrual achievement: monitoring accrual milestones of NCI-CTEP-sponsored clinical trials

   Clinical Cancer Research 17:1947–1955.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1730

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. Report

   1. Cutlip DE
   2. Nicolau JC

   (2020)

   Long-term antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery stenting in stable patients

   Uptodate.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. De Angelis C
    2. Drazen JM
    3. Frizelle FA
    4. Haug C
    5. Hoey J
    6. Horton R
    7. Kotzin S
    8. Laine C
    9. Marusic A
    10. Overbeke A
    11. Schroeder TV
    12. Sox HC
    13. Van Der Weyden MB
    14. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

    (2004) Clinical trial registration: A statement from the international committee of medical journal editors

    The New England Journal of Medicine 351:1250–1251.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe048225

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. DeVito NJ
    2. Bacon S
    3. Goldacre B

    (2020) Compliance with legal requirement to report clinical trial results on clinicaltrials.gov: a cohort study

    Lancet 395:361–369.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)33220-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Fergusson D
    2. Glass KC
    3. Hutton B
    4. Shapiro S

    (2005) Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?

    Clinical Trials 2:218–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1191/1740774505cn085oa

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Glasziou P
    2. Altman DG
    3. Bossuyt P
    4. Boutron I
    5. Clarke M
    6. Julious S
    7. Michie S
    8. Moher D
    9. Wager E

    (2014) Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research

    Lancet 383:267–276.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Higgins JPT
    2. Altman DG
    3. Gøtzsche PC
    4. Jüni P
    5. Moher D
    6. Oxman AD
    7. Savovic J
    8. Schulz KF
    9. Weeks L
    10. Sterne JAC
    11. Cochrane Bias Methods Group
    12. Cochrane Statistical Methods Group

    (2011) The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

    BMJ 343:d5928.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. Data

    1. Hutchinson N
    2. Moyer H
    3. Zarin D
    4. Kimmelman J

    (authors) (2020) What fraction of trials inform clinical practice? A longitudinal cohort study of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov

    Open Science Framework.

    https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3EGKU
16. Software

    1. Hutchinson N

    (2022) Informative_Trials, version 436d1eb810

    Codeberg.

    https://codeberg.org/nhutchin/Informative_Trials
17. 1. Ioannidis JPA
    2. Greenland S
    3. Hlatky MA
    4. Khoury MJ
    5. Macleod MR
    6. Moher D
    7. Schulz KF
    8. Tibshirani R

    (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis

    Lancet 383:166–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Kimmel SE
    2. Califf RM
    3. Dean NE
    4. Goodman SN
    5. Ogburn EL

    (2020) COVID-19 clinical trials: a teachable moment for improving our research infrastructure and relevance

    Annals of Internal Medicine 173:652–653.

    https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-2959

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. Report

    1. Kluwer Logo

    (2022) UpToDate: Industry-Leading Clinical Decision Support

    Kluwer Logo.

    https://www.uptodate.com/home

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Korn EL
    2. Freidlin B
    3. Mooney M
    4. Abrams JS

    (2010) Accrual experience of national cancer institute cooperative group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 28:5197–5201.

    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.5382

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. London AJ
    2. Kimmelman J

    (2020) Against pandemic research exceptionalism

    Science 368:476–477.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1731

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Men P
    2. Li X-T
    3. Tang H-L
    4. Zhai S

    (2018) Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    PLOS ONE 13:e0197321.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197321

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Moher D
    2. Glasziou P
    3. Chalmers I
    4. Nasser M
    5. Bossuyt PMM
    6. Korevaar DA
    7. Graham ID
    8. Ravaud P
    9. Boutron I

    (2016) Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who’s listening?

    Lancet 387:1573–1586.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00307-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Mok TS
    2. Geater SL
    3. Iannotti N
    4. Thongprasert S
    5. Spira A
    6. Smith D
    7. Lee V
    8. Lim WT
    9. Reyderman L
    10. Wang B
    11. Gopalakrishna P
    12. Garzon F
    13. Xu L
    14. Reynolds C

    (2014) Randomized phase II study of two intercalated combinations of eribulin mesylate and erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

    Annals of Oncology 25:1578–1584.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu174

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Ndounga Diakou LA
    2. Ntoumi F
    3. Ravaud P
    4. Boutron I

    (2017) Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in sub-saharan africa

    Trials 18:291.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2034-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Neutel JM
    2. Zhao C
    3. Karyekar CS

    (2013) Adding saxagliptin to metformin extended release (XR) or uptitration of metformin XR: efficacy on daily glucose measures

    Diabetes Therapy 4:269–283.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-013-0028-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Phillips AT
    2. Desai NR
    3. Krumholz HM
    4. Zou CX
    5. Miller JE
    6. Ross JS

    (2017) Association of the FDA amendment act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting

    Trials 18:333.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2068-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    http://www.r-project.org
29. 1. Tibau A
    2. Molto C
    3. Ocana A
    4. Templeton AJ
    5. Del Carpio LP
    6. Del Paggio JC
    7. Barnadas A
    8. Booth CM
    9. Amir E

    (2018) Magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved by the US food and drug administration

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 110:486–492.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. Website

    1. U.S. Public Law

    (2007a) Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. U.S. Public Law No. 110-85 Section 801

    Accessed July 24, 2020.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82
31. Website

    1. U.S. Public Law

    (2007b) U.S. Public Law 110-85 (Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007) Title VIII, Section 801

    Accessed July 24, 2020.

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf
32. 1. Vale CL
    2. Tierney JF
    3. Burdett S

    (2013) Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews

    BMJ 346:f1798.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1798

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. von Niederhäusern B
    2. Guyatt GH
    3. Briel M
    4. Pauli-Magnus C

    (2018) Academic response to improving value and reducing waste: A comprehensive framework for increasing quality in patient-oriented academic clinical research (INQUIRE)

    PLOS Medicine 15:e1002580.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002580

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Walters SJ
    2. Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I
    3. Bortolami O
    4. Flight L
    5. Hind D
    6. Jacques RM
    7. Knox C
    8. Nadin B
    9. Rothwell J
    10. Surtees M
    11. Julious SA

    (2017) Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the united kingdom health technology assessment programme

    BMJ Open 7:e015276.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Xu Y
    2. Shen Y
    3. Chen D
    4. Zhao P
    5. Jiang J

    (2021) Efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

    Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2021:9934535.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9934535

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Yin SHL
    2. Xu P
    3. Wang B
    4. Lu Y
    5. Wu QY
    6. Zhou ML
    7. Wu JR
    8. Cai JJ
    9. Sun X
    10. Yuan H

    (2019) Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent: systematic review and network meta-analysis

    BMJ 365:l2222.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2222

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Yordanov Y
    2. Dechartres A
    3. Porcher R
    4. Boutron I
    5. Altman DG
    6. Ravaud P

    (2015) Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials

    BMJ 350:h809.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h809

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Yordanov Y
    2. Dechartres A
    3. Atal I
    4. Tran VT
    5. Boutron I
    6. Crequit P
    7. Ravaud P

    (2018) Avoidable waste of research related to outcome planning and reporting in clinical trials

    BMC Medicine 16:87.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1083-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Zarin DA
    2. Goodman SN
    3. Kimmelman J

    (2019) Harms from uninformative clinical trials

    JAMA 322:813–814.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.9892

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Nora Hutchinson

   Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Dept. of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1349-8592

2. Hannah Moyer

   Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Dept. of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5617-7927

3. Deborah A Zarin

   Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   received payment as consultant for National Library of Medicine, NIH, for scientific advice to ClinicalTrials.gov and received grants from the Greenwall Foundation

4. Jonathan Kimmelman

   Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine (STREAM), Dept. of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   jonathan.kimmelman@mcgill.ca

   Competing interests

   received consulting fees from Amylyx Inc and payments from Biomarin. JK participated on Data Safety Monitoring Boards for NIAID and Ultragenyx

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1614-6779

• 1,488

  views

• 306

  downloads

• 8

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.