Tracking outcome changes in benign prostatic hyperplasia trials: a version history review of ClinicalTrials.gov records

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition with trials that frequently rely on subjective outcomes. While federal regulations require prospective outcome registration in ClinicalTrials.gov, modifications to these outcomes are permitted and often unjustified, potentially compromising transparency and interpretability. This study examined the frequency, timing, type, and transparency of prespecified outcome modifications in BPH trials. METHODS: We conducted a registry-based cross-sectional analysis of interventional BPH trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between January 18, 2017, and December 31, 2024. Eligible trials enrolled adult males, reported posted results, contained prespecified outcomes in both original and most recent registry versions, and were linked to peer-reviewed publications. Modifications were categorized by type (e.g., additions, removals, rewordings), timing, and severity. Key variables included the Outcome Load Index (OLI) and a Severity-Weighted Change Score. Statistical analyses included Cochran's Q tests, Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis, and correlation tests. RESULTS: Of 1383 records screened, 36 trials met inclusion criteria. All trials (100%) exhibited at least one outcome modification, none of which were justified. Modifications occurred exclusively after primary completion; half occurred before publication and half after. Minor rewording and broad-to-specific definitional shifts were most common. Changes were significantly more frequent in secondary outcomes (p < 0.01). Severity scores varied widely but were not consistently associated with funder or intervention type. OLI showed weak correlation with modification frequency (r = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In this registry-based analysis of BPH clinical trials, outcome modifications were universal, occurred exclusively after primary completion, and were never justified in either the registry or corresponding publications. These findings highlight a persistent gap in transparency that could affect the interpretability of trial results. Greater oversight of registry version histories and stronger disclosure standards are needed to ensure the credibility of outcome reporting in BPH research and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on the Open Science Framework. The study was additionally submitted to PROSPERO; the OSF registration is the protocol of record. Registered on July 17, 2025.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Trials
Published
2026-07-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-026-09892-0
Primary Topic
Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Tracking outcome changes in benign prostatic hyperplasia trials: a version history review of ClinicalTrials.gov records

Rachel Hazlitt, Matt Vassar, Ryan Sherry, Kellen Keefer et al.
Trials
Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
article

Tracking outcome changes in benign prostatic hyperplasia trials: a version history review of ClinicalTrials.gov records

Rachel Hazlitt, Matt Vassar, Ryan Sherry, Kellen Keefer, Daniel Archer, Alicia Ito Ford, Ahmed Elghzali, Tanner Livsey, Malek Itani
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition with trials that frequently rely on subjective outcomes. While federal regulations require prospective outcome registration in ClinicalTrials.gov, modifications to these outcomes are permitted and often unjustified, potentially compromising transparency and interpretability. This study examined the frequency, timing, type, and transparency of prespecified outcome modifications in BPH trials. METHODS: We conducted a registry-based cross-sectional analysis of interventional BPH trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov between January 18, 2017, and December 31, 2024. Eligible trials enrolled adult males, reported posted results, contained prespecified outcomes in both original and most recent registry versions, and were linked to peer-reviewed publications. Modifications were categorized by type (e.g., additions, removals, rewordings), timing, and severity. Key variables included the Outcome Load Index (OLI) and a Severity-Weighted Change Score. Statistical analyses included Cochran's Q tests, Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analysis, and correlation tests. RESULTS: Of 1383 records screened, 36 trials met inclusion criteria. All trials (100%) exhibited at least one outcome modification, none of which were justified. Modifications occurred exclusively after primary completion; half occurred before publication and half after. Minor rewording and broad-to-specific definitional shifts were most common. Changes were significantly more frequent in secondary outcomes (p < 0.01). Severity scores varied widely but were not consistently associated with funder or intervention type. OLI showed weak correlation with modification frequency (r = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: In this registry-based analysis of BPH clinical trials, outcome modifications were universal, occurred exclusively after primary completion, and were never justified in either the registry or corresponding publications. These findings highlight a persistent gap in transparency that could affect the interpretability of trial results. Greater oversight of registry version histories and stronger disclosure standards are needed to ensure the credibility of outcome reporting in BPH research and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on the Open Science Framework. The study was additionally submitted to PROSPERO; the OSF registration is the protocol of record. Registered on July 17, 2025.

Trials
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
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.