Research waste in randomized clinical trials of degenerative spinal diseases: a cross-sectional study

Evidence-based medicine continues to face the challenge of research waste (i.e., nonpublication, reporting limitations, high risk of bias) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of degenerative spinal diseases (DSDs). A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs registered before July 27, 2024 using the keywords DSDs and related terms. The major outcome was the percentage of trials exhibiting the characteristics of research waste on DSD RCTs. A total of 335 DSD RCTs were eligible, with a lower percentage of multicenter trials outside North America than in North America (33 [14.7%] vs. 53 [47.7%]; P < .001). A total of 224 trials were included. Of the 176 (78.6%) published RCTs, 126 (71.5%) had reporting limitations and 71 (40.3%) were at high risk of bias. RCTs with implementing blinding (single vs. none/open-label: OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.35, P < .001; double/more vs. none/open-label: 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, P = .003), non-industry funding (0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.42; P < .001), and multicenter (0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.56; P = .002) have lower odds of research waste. In conclusion, we provide the first description of DSD RCTs over the past 30 years and find significant research waste that is out of proportion to the magnitude of the disease burden.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-11618-2
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Research waste in randomized clinical trials of degenerative spinal diseases: a cross-sectional study

Zhehao Xiao, Yike Lin, Nan Zheng, Chunmei Chen et al.
Scientific Reports
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
article

Research waste in randomized clinical trials of degenerative spinal diseases: a cross-sectional study

Zhehao Xiao, Yike Lin, Nan Zheng, Chunmei Chen, Chun‐Hua Wang, Yan Chen, Rui Wang, Shichao Liu, Zeyan Liang
article en

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine continues to face the challenge of research waste (i.e., nonpublication, reporting limitations, high risk of bias) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of degenerative spinal diseases (DSDs). A search was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs registered before July 27, 2024 using the keywords DSDs and related terms. The major outcome was the percentage of trials exhibiting the characteristics of research waste on DSD RCTs. A total of 335 DSD RCTs were eligible, with a lower percentage of multicenter trials outside North America than in North America (33 [14.7%] vs. 53 [47.7%]; P < .001). A total of 224 trials were included. Of the 176 (78.6%) published RCTs, 126 (71.5%) had reporting limitations and 71 (40.3%) were at high risk of bias. RCTs with implementing blinding (single vs. none/open-label: OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.35, P < .001; double/more vs. none/open-label: 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, P = .003), non-industry funding (0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.42; P < .001), and multicenter (0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.56; P = .002) have lower odds of research waste. In conclusion, we provide the first description of DSD RCTs over the past 30 years and find significant research waste that is out of proportion to the magnitude of the disease burden.

Scientific ReportsVol. 15(1)
Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Fujian Medical University (CN), Union Hospital (CN)
Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
Openalex Percentile: Top 55%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.