AllTrials

AllTrials
MrFringilla · CC BY-SA 4.0 · source
Name	AllTrials
Formation	2013
Type	Campaign
Purpose	Clinical trial transparency and reporting
Headquarters	London
Region served	International

AllTrials

AllTrials is an international campaign that advocates for the registration and full reporting of clinical trial methods and results. Founded by activists, researchers, and clinicians, the campaign engages with regulators, publishers, funders, and pharmaceutical companies to promote transparency in biomedical research. Its activities connect public health debates, medical ethics, evidence-based medicine, and regulatory reform across the United Kingdom, European Union, and United States.

Background and founding

AllTrials was launched in 2013 following collaborative discussions among figures from Sense About Science, BMJ, Ben Goldacre, Edzard Ernst, Richard Smith, and other advocates concerned about unpublished clinical trial results. The genesis of the campaign drew upon earlier controversies involving Vioxx, Tamiflu, Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and disputes surrounding trial reporting exposed in cases linked to institutions such as GSK, Pfizer, Roche, and regulatory agencies including the European Medicines Agency and United States Food and Drug Administration. The founding coalition cited precedents in transparency movements associated with FOI Act requests, whistleblowing episodes like Andrew Wakefield controversy, and systematic reviews from researchers at Cochrane and Oxford and Cambridge.

Campaign goals and activities

The campaign’s primary goals include prospective registration of trials, full methods disclosure, and posting of accessible results for all clinical trials. It lobbied legislative bodies such as the European Parliament, the United States Congress, and the UK Parliament while engaging with regulators including the European Medicines Agency and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Activities encompassed petitions, public statements in outlets like The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The New York Times, and collaboration with journals such as The Lancet, BMJ, and PLOS Medicine to enforce reporting standards. AllTrials promoted alignment with initiatives such as CONSORT, ICMJE, and the WHO trial registry platform, and coordinated with funders like the Wellcome Trust, MRC, and National Institutes of Health to insist on data-sharing mandates.

Signatories and supporters

The campaign accrued endorsements from a broad coalition of researchers, patient groups, medical editors, and professional bodies. Signatories included individuals affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University, University College London, Imperial College London, Stanford University, and organizations such as European Public Health Alliance, NHS England, Academy of Medical Sciences, Royal College of Physicians, and American Medical Association. Publishers and editorial leaders from New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Nature, and Science engaged with the campaign’s goals. Patient advocacy networks such as Cancer Research UK, MS Society, Alzheimer's Society, and groups formed after high-profile drug safety controversies also supported the initiative.

Impact on clinical trial reporting and policy

AllTrials influenced policy debates and contributed to reforms in trial transparency governance. Its advocacy intersected with enforcement actions at the European Medicines Agency and spurred updates to trial registration requirements at the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and the ISRCTN Registry. Legislative linkages emerged with provisions in the Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) and amendments considered in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. The campaign’s pressure correlated with shifts in journal editorial policies by ICMJE member journals and the strengthening of data-sharing statements adopted by funders such as the Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Empirical audits by researchers at institutions like Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Cochrane documented changes in reporting rates and highlighted ongoing gaps.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics argued that the campaign’s emphasis on universal data release risked compromising participant privacy, intellectual property rights held by companies like Novartis and AstraZeneca, and the commercial incentives underpinning pharmaceutical development represented by trade associations such as Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Debates invoked legal frameworks including General Data Protection Regulation and court decisions in jurisdictions like United Kingdom and United States. Some academic commentators cautioned about potential misuse of raw data in secondary analyses and tensions between transparency and innovation discussed in venues such as Royal Society meetings and policy forums convened by OECD and WHO. Responses from industry players including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. framed data-sharing as complex rather than uniformly beneficial.

Notable initiatives and partnerships

AllTrials partnered with research organizations and media investigations to expose selective reporting, collaborating with investigative outlets including ProPublica, BBC, The Times, and The Sunday Times. It supported open-data tools and platforms such as YODA Project, the OpenTrials database, and registry harmonization efforts led by the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Partnerships extended to academic centers at University of Oxford, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and University of Toronto to produce systematic reviews and audits. The campaign’s alliances influenced dialogues at conferences organized by European Society for Clinical Investigation, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and World Economic Forum panels on health data transparency.

Category:Clinical trial transparency campaigns