Registry Linkage
Cross-source consensus on Registry Linkage from 1 sources and 6 claims.
1 sources · 6 claims
Risks & contraindications
Comparisons
Evidence quality
Other
Highlighted claims
- Most potential cross-registrations were linked by a TRN in at least one registry. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Bidirectional TRN linkage was uncommon among potential cross-registrations. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Some potential cross-registrations were detected through title matching or TRNs in publications rather than registry TRNs. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- ClinicalTrials.gov more often listed matching EUCTR TRNs than EUCTR listed matching ClinicalTrials.gov TRNs in ClinicalTrials.gov–EUCTR pairs. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- DRKS listed matching EUCTR TRNs in all DRKS–EUCTR pairs, while EUCTR listed matching DRKS TRNs in only a minority. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Unidirectional registry links reduce automated discoverability of cross-registrations. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres