This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Current Controlled Trials | |
|---|---|
| Name | Current Controlled Trials |
| Type | Clinical trial registry |
| Founded | 1999 |
| Founder | Paul Glasziou; Iain Chalmers (note: see related figures) |
| Location | United Kingdom |
| Predecessor | Controlled Clinical Trials |
| Successor | ISRCTN Registry |
| Language | English |
Current Controlled Trials was an online registry and publication platform for randomized controlled trials and other clinical studies that aimed to improve trial transparency, reduce publication bias, and provide a central searchable record for investigators, funders, and practitioners. It operated during the late 1990s and 2000s and influenced policies adopted by organizations such as World Health Organization, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, UK National Health Service, and Cochrane Collaboration. The registry intersected with initiatives led by figures and institutions including Richard Horton, Iain Chalmers, Paul Glasziou, Andrew Booth, and Peter Gøtzsche.
Current Controlled Trials served as a platform to register trials, publish trial protocols, and host the journal Controlled Clinical Trials, later integrating registry functions that paralleled registries like ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, ANZCTR, and the ISRCTN Registry. Its scope included randomized controlled trials, multicenter studies involving institutions such as Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Royal Marsden Hospital, and collaborative networks like NIHR-funded units. The platform addressed concerns raised by reviews in outlets such as The Lancet, BMJ, New England Journal of Medicine, and JAMA about selective outcome reporting and non-publication in trials associated with sponsors including GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Merck & Co., and Novartis.
The initiative emerged amid rising attention to trial registries following controversies involving trial concealment documented in investigations referencing companies like Wyeth, legal cases such as Vioxx litigation, and meta-research by scholars from Oxford University, Harvard School of Public Health, and University College London. It developed alongside the push by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in 2004 to require trial registration as a condition of publication, a movement influenced by actors including Ben Goldacre and organizations like AllTrials. The evolution of the registry reflected regulatory shifts across jurisdictions including directives from the European Medicines Agency, guidance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and policy statements by World Health Organization committees.
The registry captured identifiers, trial design elements, and protocol summaries comparable to fields used by ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN Registry, enabling linkage to ethics committees like those at National Institutes of Health centers and institutional review boards at centers such as Mayo Clinic and Massachusetts General Hospital. It facilitated registration for trials conducted in countries ranging from United Kingdom and United States to India, China, South Africa, and Brazil, interfacing with regulatory frameworks including the Food and Drugs Act (UK/US historical statutes referenced by regulators) and EU directives overseen by the European Commission. The structure supported trial types led by investigators at institutions like Karolinska Institutet, McMaster University, Karolinska University Hospital, and Imperial College London.
The platform hosted randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials, crossover trials, adaptive trials, and pilot studies authored by teams from Stanford University, University of Oxford, Yale University, University of Toronto, and University of Melbourne. Methodological standards referenced CONSORT guidelines promoted by CONSORT Group contributors including Doug Altman and linked to reporting expectations from journals such as BMJ and The Lancet. Trials covered interventions across specialties represented by institutions such as Mayo Clinic (cardiology), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (oncology), Sheffield Teaching Hospitals (surgery), and Great Ormond Street Hospital (pediatrics).
Current Controlled Trials aimed to improve transparency comparable to transparency efforts advocated by AllTrials, Cochrane Collaboration, and policy makers at World Health Organization. It provided protocol summaries and trial status updates intended to mitigate selective reporting issues highlighted in analyses by researchers at University of Oxford, Harvard University, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The registry model anticipated data-sharing frameworks later formalized by initiatives from Yale Open Data Access (YODA), ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, and funders including the Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Governance engaged stakeholders from academia, publishers, and regulators including representatives connected to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, World Health Organization, European Medicines Agency, and national bodies such as National Institutes of Health, Health Canada, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Ethical oversight intersected with institutional review boards at Massachusetts General Hospital, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, and ethics committees in nations like Australia, Canada, and South Africa. Compliance considerations reflected legal and policy developments influenced by high-profile inquiries such as the Vioxx litigation and regulatory reforms enacted by authorities including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The registry contributed to shifts in publication practices and trial transparency that affected guideline developers and clinical policy bodies including NICE, WHO Guidelines Review Committee, European Society of Cardiology, and specialty colleges such as Royal College of Physicians and American College of Cardiology. Its influence is evident in meta-analyses produced by teams at Cochrane Collaboration, systematic reviews from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and methodological research at University of Oxford and McMaster University, which used registry records to detect outcome switching, publication bias, and incomplete reporting in trials sponsored by organizations like GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
Category:Clinical trial registries