↓ Skip to main content

Previously unidentified duplicate registrations of clinical trials: an exploratory analysis of registry data worldwide

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Previously unidentified duplicate registrations of clinical trials: an exploratory analysis of registry data worldwide
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0283-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gert van Valkenhoef, Russell F. Loane, Deborah A. Zarin

Abstract

Trial registries were established to combat publication bias by creating a comprehensive and unambiguous record of initiated clinical trials. However, the proliferation of registries and registration policies means that a single trial may be registered multiple times (i.e., "duplicates"). Because unidentified duplicates threaten our ability to identify trials unambiguously, we investigate to what degree duplicates have been identified across registries globally. We retrieved all records from the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal and made a list of all records identified as duplicates by the ICTRP. To investigate how to discriminate duplicates from non-duplicates, we applied text-based similarity scoring to various registration fields of both ICTRP-identified duplicates and arbitrary pairs of trials. We then used the best similarity measure to identify the most similar pairs of records and manually assessed a random sample of pairs not identified as duplicates by the ICTRP to estimate the number of previously unidentified (or "hidden") duplicates. Two hundred eighty-five thousand unique records, or 271 thousand unique trials after accounting for known duplicates, were retrieved from the ICTRP portal in April 2015. We found that the title field best discriminated duplicates from non-duplicates. Out of 41 billion total pair-wise comparisons, we identified the 474,000 pairs of titles with the highest similarity scores (>0.5). After manually assessing a random sample of 434 pairs, we estimated that 45 % of all duplicate registrations currently go undetected and remain to be identified and confirmed as duplicates. Thus, the actual number of unique trials represented in this dataset is estimated to be approximately 258,000 (5 % less). The ICTRP portal does not currently enable the unambiguous identification of trials across registries. Further research is needed to identify and verify the duplicates that currently go undetected. Sponsors, registries, and the ICTRP should consider actions to ensure duplicate registrations are easily identifiable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Master 3 15%
Professor 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,421,031
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#393
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,397
of 373,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#10
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.