Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Kaleb Fuller1, Aaron Bowers2, Matt Vassar2
1Department of Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA kaleb.fuller@okstate.edu.
Abstract:
Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: to evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Statistical Software for Data Analysis and Clinical Trials
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview
Trial and Error and Algorithm

