Trial Registration Policy Research Articles

Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundNeurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration.MethodsFor this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal’s Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023.ResultsOf the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%).ConclusionsWhile many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.

A cross-sectional analysis of reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies in nephrology journals.

To determine the extent to which nephrology journals recommend and require reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration. Despite a rising disease burden, research published on chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the field of nephrology has failed to keep pace and is limited. To improve the quality of research in the field of nephrology, reporting guidelines have been developed to minimize such deficits in research quality. However, the extent to which nephrology journals require and use reporting guidelines in addition to clinical trial registration is unknown. Sixty-two Nephrology journals were selected through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Each journal's Instructions for Authors was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Researchers used R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio to create data summaries of descriptive statistics for nephrology journal reporting guidelines. Clinical trial registration was required by 52% (32/62) of nephrology journals within our sample. The reporting guideline for clinical trials, CONSORT, was required by 17.74% (11/62) of journals. The EQUATOR Network was mentioned by 46.77% (29/62) of journals, while 9.67% (6/62) failed to mention the ICMJE. The reporting guideline for systematic review, PRISMA, was only required by 12.90% (8/62) of journals. When contacting journal editors, 9.67% (6/62) responded and 4.83% (3/62) provided clarifying information. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are suboptimally required and recommended by nephrology journals. Their adoption may decrease bias and increase research quality. Thus, nephrology journals should consider a more complete endorsement of these safeguards.

Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration

ObjectiveTo assess reporting guideline and clinical trial registration requirements in rehabilitation journals. DesignWe examined rehabilitation journals with 5-year impact factors exceeding 1.00 from the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, alongside the 28 journals included in the 2014 rehabilitation and disability quality improvement initiative. Journals outside the traditional rehabilitation scope were excluded. SettingA publicly-funded academic health center in the United States. Participants and InterventionsN/A. Main Outcome Measure(s)The proportion of journals requiring/recommending reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. ResultsOver 90% (57/63) of journals required/recommended clinical trial reporting guidelines, while 68% (39/57) specified guideline requirements for systematic review/meta-analysis protocols. The 2014 collaborative initiative journals demonstrated higher rates of requiring/recommending reporting guidelines for clinical trials (24/26; 92.3%), systematic reviews/meta-analyses (23/26; 88.5%), observational studies in epidemiology (22/25; 88%), and diagnostic accuracy studies (20/24; 83.3%). Conversely, the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals displayed higher rates for the remaining study designs. Overall, 52/63 (82.5%) journals required/recommended trial registration. Trial registration policies were comparable, with a slight advantage favoring the 2021 Scopus CiteScore journals. ConclusionRehabilitation journals variably promoted reporting guideline use and clinical trial registration. Common study designs like clinical trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and diagnostic accuracy studies demonstrated robust requirement/recommendation rates, while less common designs like economic evaluations and animal research had suboptimal rates. Journals can enhance reporting guideline use and trial registration by directing authors to the EQUATOR Network, requiring adherence to registration and reporting standards, and clarifying language in author instructions.

ANALYSIS OF REPORTING GUIDELINE AND TRIAL REGISTRATION POLICIES AMONG GERIATRIC JOURNALS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Abstract The use of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies by academic journals reduces bias and improves transparency in clinical research. It is unknown whether geriatric and gerontology journals mention, recommend, or require their use for the studies they may potentially publish. The purpose of this study is to assess the submission guidelines of the top geriatric and gerontology journals for their editorial recommendation or requirement of predetermined reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. We identified the top 100 journals in the “Geriatrics and Gerontology” subcategory using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. We probed each journal’s “Instructions to Authors” for statements regarding reporting guidelines for popular study designs and extracted them as “Not Mentioned”, “Recommended”, “Does Not Require”, or “Required”. Further, we classified each journal’s reference to clinical trial registration in a similar manner. Of the 100 examined journals included in our analysis, the QUOROM statement was not mentioned by any journals, whereas the CONSORT statement (44/100, 44%) was mentioned and recommended/required the most often. PRISMA guidelines were not mentioned by 57 journals (57/100,57%). Furthermore, 45 journals (45/100,45%) did not mention study registration. Therefore, the recommendation or requirement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in the top 100 geriatric and gerontology journals is inconsistent. Journal editors should strongly recommend that author’s follow validated reporting guidelines to reduce potential bias and improve transparency in the articles they publish.

The Unknown Prevalence of Postrandomization Bias in 15 Physical Therapy Journals: A Methods Review.

To determine the prevalence of prospective clinical trial registration and postrandomization bias in published musculoskeletal physical therapy randomized clinical trials (RCTs). A methods review. Articles indexed in MEDLINE and published between January 2016 and July 2020 were included. Two independent blinded reviewers identified the RCTs using Covidence. We included RCTs related to musculoskeletal interventions that were published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors member journals. Data were extracted independently for the variables of interest from the identified RCTs by 2 blinded reviewers. The data were presented descriptively or in frequency tables. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were identified. One third of RCTs were consistent with their prospectively registered intent (49/138); consistency with prospectively registered intent could not be determined for two thirds (89/138) of the RCTs. Four RCTs (8%)reported inconsistent results with the primary aims and 7 (14%) with the outcomes from the prospective clinical trial registry, despite high methodological quality (Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro] scale score). Differences between prospectively registered and non-prospectively registered RCTs for PEDro scale scores had a medium effect size (r = 0.30). Two of 15 journals followed their clinical trial registration policy 100% of the time; in 1 journal, the published RCTs were consistent with the clinical trial registration. Postrandomization bias in musculoskeletal physical therapy RCTs could not be ruled out, due to the lack of prospective clinical trial registration and detailed data analysis plans. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(11):542-550. Epub 21 Sep 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10491.

Overview of Clinical Trials on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Comprehensive Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database.

PurposeA better understanding of the current features of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)-related clinical trials is important for improving designs of clinical trials and identifying neglected areas of research. It was hypothesized that the trial registration policy promoted the designs of T2DM-related trials over the years. Therefore, this study aimed to present a comprehensive overview of T2DM-related clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.MethodsT2DM-related clinical trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched and assessed the characteristics of the relevant trials. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar for the publication statuses of the primary completed trials.ResultsOverall, 5117 T2DM-related trials were identified for analysis. Of the interventional trials, 71.5% had a primary treatment purpose while only 8.9% were prevention or health service. There were more interventional trials registered prior to patient recruitment between 2012 and 2019 than between 2004 and 2011 (44.6% vs 19.9%, P<0.001). The period between 2012 and 2019 also had more trials that enrolled <100 participants (59.2% vs 50.9%), were single-center studies (60.7% vs 50.6%), had non-randomized allocations (11.3% vs 6.3%), were open-label (49.2% vs 45.6%), and had smaller sample sizes than the period between 2004 and 2011 (all P<0.001). The five-year cumulative publication rates after primary completion of the trials were <40%.ConclusionAlthough the ClinicalTrials.gov database did not include all clinical trials, the trials registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database still accounted for most of the clinical studies. Encouragingly, more interventional trials were registered prior to patient recruitment over the years. The majority of T2DM-related clinical trials focused on drug-related treatment, and trials regarding prevention in T2DM should be promoted. More attention should be paid to improve the publication and dissemination of clinical trials results.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Addiction Medicine Journals.

Robust methodology and ethical reporting are paramount for quality scientific research, but recently, that quality in addiction research has been questioned. Avenues to improve such research quality include adherence to reporting guidelines and proper usage of clinical trial registries. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registries have been shown to lead researchers to more ethical and transparent methodology. To investigate the reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies of addiction research journals and identify areas of improvement. We used Google Scholar Metrics' h-5 index to identify the top 20 addiction research journals. We then examined the instructions for authors from each journal to identify whether they required, recommended, or made no mention of trial registration and reporting guidelines, including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Case Reports (CARE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT), Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. We performed the same analysis regarding requirements for clinical trial registration. Of the 20 journals included in this study, 10 journals (50%) did not require adherence to any reporting guidelines. Trial registration followed a similar trend; 15 journals (75%) did not mention any form of trial or systematic review registration, and ClinicalTrials.gov was only recommended by only 1 journal (5%). Among top addiction medicine journals, required adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry policies remains substandard. A step toward fulfilling the National Institute on Drug Abuses' call for improvement in transparency and reproducibility within addiction research should include all journals adopting a strict reporting guideline and clinical trial registry adherence policy.

Evaluation of Journal Registration Policies and Prospective Registration of Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonregulated Health Care Interventions

Many interventions that are important to the health care of patients are not subject to regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or comparable regulatory bodies in other nations. To determine whether specialty journals that publish trials of primarily nonregulated health care interventions require prospective registration and whether the prospective registration policies are associated with the publication of prospectively registered trials, trials with adequately registered outcomes, and trials with primary outcomes consistent with the registered primary outcomes. PubMed was searched daily, from March 18, 2016, to September 17, 2016, for nonregulated intervention randomized clinical trials. The search included all journals in the Clarivate Analytics Science Citation Index Expanded categories of behavioral sciences, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, psychology, rehabilitation, and surgery. Trials of interventions not subject to FDA regulation were included. One investigator extracted journal registration policy and trial registration status. Two investigators independently extracted trial registration and publication characteristics. For journals, the main outcome was the trial registration policy. For trials, the main outcomes were prospective registration, adequacy of outcome registration, and concordance of registered with published primary outcomes. In total, 953 nonregulated intervention trials published in 254 journals were identified. Prospective registration was required for publication by 29 (11.4%) of 254 journals, and an additional 12 journals (4.7%) had conditional date-based requirements. Only 189 (19.8%) of the 953 trials were registered prospectively, including 33 of 98 published in journals with prospective registration policies as compared with 156 of 855 in journals without policies (33.7% vs 18.2%; P = .004). Among the 17 journals that required prospective registration and had at least 2 included trials, none had a prospective registration of more than 50%. In journals with policies, only 3 of 98 trials included primary outcomes consistent with prospectively, adequately registered outcomes, as compared with 34 of 852 trials in journals without policies (3.1% vs 4.0%; P = .62). Few journals in behavioral sciences or psychology, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, rehabilitation, and surgery require prospective trial registration, and those with existing registration policies rarely enforce them; this finding suggests that strategies for encouraging prospective registration of clinical trials not subject to FDA regulation should be developed and tested.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Plastic Surgery Journals.

Ensuring that published studies are of the highest methodological quality is a critical step in plastic surgery's transition to a more evidence-based field. Reporting guidelines and reporting of clinical trial registration may serve as promising avenues of increasing the methodological quality in plastic surgery trials. The objective of this study is to evaluate the rate at which plastic surgery journals require reporting guidelines, as well as the effect these policies have on adherence to reporting guidelines. Using journal's "Instructions for Authors," we conducted a cross-sectional survey to evaluate journal policies regarding adherence to reporting guidelines and trial registration. We also examined whether trials published in journals referencing Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) had higher rates of compliance with publishing a CONSORT flow diagram and whether journals with trial registration policies were more likely to contain registered trials than journals without these requirements. Of the 20 plastic surgery journals, 13 (65%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions to authors. Furthermore, 10 (50%) did not mention policies regarding clinical trial registration. In addition, journals with policies regarding the CONSORT statement were more likely to publish trials with a CONSORT flow diagram, and journals with policies regarding clinical trial registry were more likely to publish trials reporting registration. Our study found that few plastic surgery journals mention reporting guidelines or trial registration in their instructions for authors. Our study also found that journal policies regarding guideline adherence and trial registration seem to be effective mechanisms toward improvement, and plastic surgery journals should consider adopting such policies.

Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies in oncology journals: a cross-sectional review

Reporting guidelines (RG) aim to improve research transparency and ensure high-quality study reporting. Similarly, clinical trial registration policies aim to reduce bias in results reporting by ensuring prospective registration of...

Facilitating Prospective Registration of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: A STARD Initiative.

Although the introduction of prospective trial registration policies has been successful in reducing waste in research, diagnostic accuracy studies are rarely registered. We describe why diagnostic accuracy studies should be registered, and where and how this can be done. Advantages of registration include the identification of unpublished studies, prevention of selective outcome reporting, prevention of unnecessary duplication of research, collaboration between researchers, and linkage of study materials...

Trial Registration: Lessons Learned From Nursing Research

Trial Registration: Lessons Learned From <i>Nursing Research</i>

The ethical issues in instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals

ABSTRACT229 Chinese‐language biomedical journals from A Guide to The Core Journals of China were investigated for their guidance on 14 ethical issues. The issues of authorship, duplicate submission, privacy and confidentiality, and integrity of the data were mentioned in more than 50% of the journals. Except for the issues of authorship and protection of animals in research, significant differences were found between Chinese Medical Association Publishing House (CMAPH) journals (n = 67) and non‐CMAPH journals (n = 162) (P &lt; 0.05). 66 of the 229 journals did not update their instructions for authors regularly. 196 journal instructions listed authorship criteria, while the other 33 did not. Clinical trial registration policy was required by 26 (11.3%) journals, among which the CONSORT statement for randomized trials was required by 23, and only one journal guided the authors to work in line with the EQUATOR Network. The study concludes that the situation of publishing ethics in the instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals is not favorable, and that Chinese biomedical editors should learn more about publishing ethics in order to reduce opportunities for publication problems.

Reporting of Negative Randomized Trials in Three Major Medical Journals

Context: In recent years there has been increasing interest on publication bias and on initiatives to decrease bias, in- cluding trial registration. Objective: To test whether there has been an increase in reports of randomized control trials (RCT’s) with negative outcomes in major journals and to identify factors associated with these reports. Design: Retrospective review of reports of RCT’s published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine before (2002-’03, pre-registration era) and after (2007-’08, registration era) the institution of mandatory trial registration. Main Outcome Measure: The primary outcome was the proportion of RCT reports with negative outcomes compared across the two eras. Secondary outcome includes other factors affecting pub-lication. Results: We identified 917 reports of RCT’s published in the two study eras. No publications in the pre-registration era reported trial registration compared with 94.4% in the registration era (p 0.001). There was a non-significant increase in negative trials from the pre-registration to the registration era (29.1% vs. 34.1%, p = 0.10, OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 - 1.67). Study characteristics associated with negative outcomes include trials of drugs (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.08 - 2.43), procedures or devices (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.29 - 3.35), explicit identification of a single primary endpoint (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.40 - 2.47), and increasing sample size (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.78 - 5.34). Non-inferiority study design was associated with a decreased likelihood of a negative outcome (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 - 0.31). Conclusions: The proportion of published RCT reports with negative outcomes in three major medical journals has not significantly increased since the mandatory clinical trial registration policy. The observed prevalence of negative trials is associated with increases in sample size and greater specificity in trial endpoints.

Completeness and Changes in Registered Data and Reporting Bias of Randomized Controlled Trials in ICMJE Journals after Trial Registration Policy

ObjectiveWe assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy.MethodsFor a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data.ResultsRCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n = 101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly ‘Key secondary outcomes’ (44.1% RCTs) and ‘Primary outcome’ (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (χ2 1 = 7.255, P = 0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size.ConclusionsICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials.

Update on Registration of Clinical Trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

This brief note is an update to the “Medical Writing Tip of the Month” article on clinical trial registration in CHEST (March 2007).1 ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/), which currently contains > 73,000 registered trials, is operated by the National Institutes of Health. Although ClinicalTrials.gov continues to support a wide range of trial registration policies, including that of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),2 we want to call your attention to a new US law. On September 27, 2007, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) [United States Public Law 110-85], which expands the legal requirements for registration beyond previous US law and mandates results reporting.3 Violations are subject to penalties. While the information presented previously on how to register at ClinicalTrials.gov continues to apply, we briefly describe changes to the registration requirements under FDAAA (see http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/fdaaa.html for more information). Reporting results at ClinicalTrials.gov is addressed in the companion “Medical Writing Tip of the Month” article in this issue of CHEST.4 In general, section 801 of FDAAA (FDAAA 801) covers clinical trials (called “applicable clinical trials” in the law) that generally meet the following criteria: Phase 2 to 4 interventional studies; Studies that involve drugs, biological products, and medical devices (other than small feasibility studies) regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration; Studies that have at least one site in the United States or are conducted under an investigational new drug application or investigational device exemption; and Studies initiated or ongoing as of September 27, 2007, or later (those completed as of September 27, 2007, are excluded). Study sponsors or principal investigators (PIs) designated by the sponsor (called “responsible parties” in FDAAA 801) must register applicable clinical trials no later than 21 days after enrollment of the first participant. They must also provide information not previously mandated under US law but required by other registration policies (eg, ICMJE2), including all prespecified primary and secondary outcome measures (see http://prsinfo.clinicaltrials.gov/definitions.html for more details regarding the registration data element requirements). As previously described,1 ClinicalTrials.gov staff review submissions prior to public posting and may request the sponsor or PI to clarify or correct information. Most registered trials will be available publicly within 2 to 5 business days. However, currently, under FDAAA 801, registered information for trials of investigational devices “not previously cleared or approved” by the US Food and Drug Administration may not be posted on the public site prior to approval or clearance of the device(s) involved in the trial. Responsible parties of device trials who wish to comply with the journal editors' policy should consult the ICMJE site for guidance (http://www.icmje.org/faq.pdf). Further, while FDAAA requires sponsors or PIs to update the recruitment status within 30 days of a change and all other registered information no less frequently than once a year, we continue to recommend that records be amended as soon as recruitment status or other aspects of a protocol change to ensure that up-to-date information is available to the public.

Trial Registration for Public Trust: Making the Case for Medical Devices

Recently, several pharmaceutical companies have been shown to have withheld negative clinical trial results from the public. These incidents have resulted in a concerted global effort to register all trials at inception, so that all subsequent results can be tracked regardless of whether they are positive or negative. These trial registration policies have been driven in large part by concern about the pharmaceutical sector. The medical device industry is much smaller, and different from the pharmaceutical industry in some fundamental ways. This paper examines the issues surrounding registration of device trials and argues that these differences with pharmaceutical should not exempt device trials from registration.

Clinical Trials Registry

Authors and journals are more enthusiastic about the publication of trials with positive results than those negative or inconclusive trials. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors proposed comprehensive trials registration as a solution to the problem of selective awareness and announces that the ICMJE member journals will adopt a trial-registration policy to promote this goal. They establish as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. They recommend registries that meet certain criteria as www.clinicaltrials.com. Among those criteria is that the registry must be supported by a non-profit organization. On the other hand, people from Current Controlled Trials Ltd. being a commercial company, but meeting all the other criteria established by the ICMJE, feel that is being put aside. We wonder if clinical trials in our country are being registered in some of these International Registries. If not, would it be time to do so?

Trial registry policy: common editorial statement A uniform clinical trial registration policy for journals of kidney diseases, dialysis and transplantation

Trial registry policy: common editorial statement A uniform clinical trial registration policy for journals of kidney diseases, dialysis and transplantation

A Uniform Clinical Trial Registration Policy for Journals of Kidney Diseases, Dialysis and Transplantation

A Uniform Clinical Trial Registration Policy for Journals of Kidney Diseases, Dialysis and Transplantation