Embedded Files
Appraisal of: "Kaul, T., Colombijn, J.M.T., Vernooij, R.W.M., Spijker, R., Idema, D.L., Huis in ‘t Veld, L.F., Damen, J.A.A., & Hooft, L. (2024). Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 169, 111300. "
Appraisal of: "Kaul, T., Colombijn, J.M.T., Vernooij, R.W.M., Spijker, R., Idema, D.L., Huis in ‘t Veld, L.F., Damen, J.A.A., & Hooft, L. (2024). Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 169, 111300. "
Reviewer(s):
Juilet Brown
Alan Lovell
MS Copilot
Full Reference:
Kaul, T., Colombijn, J.M.T., Vernooij, R.W.M., Spijker, R., Idema, D.L., Huis in ‘t Veld, L.F., Damen, J.A.A., & Hooft, L. (2024). Both clinical trial register and electronic bibliographic database searches were needed to identify randomized clinical trials for systematic reviews: an evaluation study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 169, 111300. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111300.
Short description:
This evaluation study assessed the effectiveness of clinical trial register (CTR) searches versus electronic bibliographic database (EBD) searches in identifying randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Using a case study focused on cardiovascular RCTs involving direct anticoagulants, the authors compared results from CTRs (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP via CENTRAL) and EBDs (CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE).
Of 138 unique RCTs identified, 92 were completed, with 81 having results available. CTR searches identified more completed RCTs (83) than EBD searches (79), including trials not yet published. However, both methods missed some trials. CTR searches were more effective in identifying ongoing trials and required less screening effort. The study concludes that a dual search strategy remains necessary for comprehensive identification, though CTR-only searches may become viable with improved infrastructure and reporting.
Limitations stated by the author(s):
The study focused on cardiovascular RCTs involving direct anticoagulants, limiting generalizability to other clinical areas.
CTR searches may miss older trials due to lack of registration before 2005.
Only RCTs were considered; findings may not apply to other study designs.
Some records were not screened in duplicate, though calibration and interrater reliability were used.
Manual effort was required to locate missing results and publications due to incomplete CTR records.
Limitations stated by the reviewer(s):
The study’s reliance on a single clinical domain may not reflect broader trends in trial registration or publication.
The infrastructure challenges of CTRs (e.g., lack of links to publications, incomplete results) limit their standalone utility.
The evaluation did not assess the impact of missed trials on systematic review conclusions.
The study assumes that CTRs will improve, but does not test interventions to enhance CTR usability.
Study Type:
Evaluation Study (Comparative Analysis of Search Strategies for Systematic Reviews)
Related Chapters:
Tags:
Databases
Clinical trials registers
Page updated
Report abuse