Manual Validation
Cross-source consensus on Manual Validation from 1 sources and 5 claims.
1 sources · 5 claims
Risks & contraindications
Evidence quality
Other
Highlighted claims
- A non-random sample of 242 potential cross-registrations was manually screened. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Ninety-four percent of screened potential cross-registrations were confirmed as genuine cross-registrations of the same trial. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Manual confirmation used multiple trial characteristics, including title or sponsor, outcomes, design, intervention, comparator, enrolment, and population. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Exact matches across all characteristics were not required for confirmation. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Publication full-text TRN mentions had higher false-positive risk than some other identification sources. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres