Assessment of registration quality of trials sponsored by China
Article first published online: 5 MAR 2009
© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd and Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Volume 2, Issue 1, pages 8–18, February 2009
How to Cite
Liu, X., Li, Y., Yu, X., Feng, J., Zhong, X., Yang, X. and Li, J. (2009), Assessment of registration quality of trials sponsored by China. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2: 8–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2009.01007.x
- Issue published online: 5 MAR 2009
- Article first published online: 5 MAR 2009
- Received: 29 December 2008; accepted for publication 10 January 2009.
- Trial registration;
- registration quality;
- WHO Trial Registration Data Set;
Objective To evaluate the quality of the registration information for trials sponsored by China registered in the WHO primary registries or other registries that meet the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Methods We assessed the registration information for trials registered in the 9 WHO primary registries and one other registry that met the requirements of ICJME as of 15 October 2008. We analyzed the trial registration data set in each registry and assessed the registration quality against the WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS). We also evaluated the quality of the information in the Source(s) of Monetary or Material Support section, using a specially prepared scale.
Results The entries in four registries met the 20 items of the WHO TRDS. These were the Chinese Clinical Trial Registration Center (ChiCR), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (NZCTR), Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI), and Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR). Registration quality varied among the different registries. For example, using the Scale of TRDS, the NZCTR scored a median of 19 points, ChiCTR (median = 18 points), ISRCTN.org (median = 17 points), and Clinical trials.org (median = 12 points). The data on monetary or material support for ChiCTR and ISRCTN.org were relatively complete and the score on our Scale for the Completeness of Funding Registration Quality ranged from ChiCTR (median = 7 points), ISRCTN.org (median = 6 points), NZCTR (median = 3 points) to clinicaltrials.gov (median = 2 points).
Conclusion Further improvements are needed in both the quantity and quality of trial registration. This could be achieved by full completion of the 20 items of the WHO TRDS. Future research should assess ways to ensure the quality and scope of research registration and the role of mandatory registration of funded research.