Results Reporting
Cross-source consensus on Results Reporting from 1 sources and 6 claims.
1 sources · 6 claims
Benefits
Risks & contraindications
Comparisons
Highlighted claims
- Registries differ in the formats they provide for capturing trial results. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- ClinicalTrials.gov and EUCTR support structured tabular results, while EUCTR also permits uploaded synopses and reports. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Including non-tabular EUCTR formats increased detected results availability. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- In EUCTR–DRKS pairs, results availability was driven entirely by EUCTR because DRKS lacks a comparable structured format. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- EUCTR was the dominant route for results reporting in the assessed cross-registrations. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres
- Trials with results only on EUCTR would appear unreported if monitoring consulted only ClinicalTrials.gov or DRKS. — Accounting for cross-registration in monitoring transparency in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of trials at German university medical centres