Abstract
AbstractRegistries of clinical trials are a potential source for scientometric analysis of medical research and serve important functions for the research community and the public at large. Clinical trials that recruit patients in Germany are usually registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) or in international registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov. Furthermore, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) aggregates trials from multiple primary registries. We queried the DRKS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ICTRP for trials with a recruiting location in Germany. Trials that were registered in multiple registries were linked using the primary and secondary identifiers and a Random Forest model based on various similarity metrics. We identified 35,912 trials that were conducted in Germany. The majority of the trials was registered in multiple databases. 32,106 trials were linked using primary IDs, 26 were linked using a Random Forest model, and 10,537 internal duplicates on ICTRP were identified using the Random Forest model after finding pairs with matching primary or secondary IDs. In cross-validation, the Random Forest increased the F1-score from 96.4% to 97.1% compared to a linkage based solely on secondary IDs on a manually labelled data set. 28% of all trials were registered in the German DRKS. 54% of the trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, 43% of the trials on the DRKS and 56% of the trials on the ICTRP were pre-registered. The ratio of pre-registered studies and the ratio of studies that are registered in the DRKS increased over time.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Fachhochschule Bielefeld
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,General Social Sciences
Reference37 articles.
1. Abdulhayoglu, M. A., & Thijs, B. (2018). Use of locality sensitive hashing (LSH) algorithm to match Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2569-6
2. Andersen, J. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Price revisited: On the growth of dissertations in eight research fields. Scientometrics, 88(2), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0408-8
3. Anderson, M. L., Chiswell, K., Peterson, E. D., Tasneem, A., Topping, J., & Califf, R. M. (2015). Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. The New England Journal of Medicine, 372(11), 1031–1039. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1409364
4. Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA, 291(20), 2457–2465.
5. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. (2021). AACT Database. Retrieved February 16, 2021, from https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/download
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献