Original Investigation
Nonregistration, Discontinuation, and Nonpublication of Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review
Benjamin Speich, Ala Taji Heravi, Christof M. Schönenberger, et al
JAMA Netw Open 2025;8;(9):e2524440. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.24440
Question What percentage of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are unregistered, prematurely discontinued, or unpublished?
Findings This systematic review assessing 347 RCTs receiving ethical approval in 2016 in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada found that 5.8% were unregistered, 31.1% were discontinued (predominately because of poor recruitment), and 20.5% did not make results available. Industry-sponsored RCTs performed better than non–industry-sponsored RCTs in making trial results available (often through trial registries) and industry-sponsored RCTs were less likely to be discontinued due to poor recruitment.
Meaning Results of this study suggest that actions are needed to improve good practice and transparency in RCTs, particularly among non–industry-sponsored trials.
Abstract
Importance Previous work found that 25% to 30% of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with protocols approved in 2012 or between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, most commonly due to inadequate participant recruitment. To minimize research waste, RCTs should be registered and their results made available.
Objectives To assess the fate of RCTs approved by ethics committees in 2016 in terms of nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication, and to examine RCT characteristics associated with discontinuation due to poor recruitment and nonpublication of RCT results.
Evidence Review As a prespecified project of the Adherence to SPIRIT Recommendations (ASPIRE) study, this systematic review had access to 347 RCT protocols approved in 2016 by research ethics committees in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. Eligible RCTs were defined as prospective studies randomly assigning participants to interventions to study effects on health outcomes. RCTs were excluded that never started, were ongoing at time of follow-up, were duplicates, or were labeled as pilot, feasibility, or phase 1 trials. Key trial characteristics were extracted from the approved trial protocols. In July 2024, pairs of reviewers systematically searched for trial registrations and results publications. When the status of either was unclear, the corresponding ethics committee or the principal investigator was contacted for clarification.
Findings Of 347 included RCTs, 20 (5.8%) were unregistered, 108 (31.1%) were discontinued, most often due to poor recruitment (49 [45.4%]), and 276 (79.5%) made their results publicly available. Results from industry-sponsored trials were more often available than non–industry-sponsored trials (166 of 181 [92.3%] vs 110 of 166 [66.3%]). This difference was attributable to a higher prevalence of industry-sponsored trials that reported results in trial registries (153 of 181 [84.5%]) vs nonindustry RCTs (17 of 166 [10.2%]). Multivariable logistic regression indicated that industry-sponsored trials were less frequently discontinued due to poor recruitment than non–industry-sponsored RCTs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.15-0.71]).
Conclusions and Relevance Findings from this systematic review indicated that nonregistration, premature discontinuation due to poor recruitment, and nonpublication of RCT results remained major challenges, especially for non–industry-sponsored trials. To mitigate these challenges, requirements enforced by funders and ethics committees also taking into account legal obligations should be considered and empirically evaluated.
