CT.gov Industry Disclosure Gap
2026-03-29 | full-registry ct.gov audit | plots, figures, and e156 bundle
Series
Industry Disclosure GapSponsor-Class HiddennessPhase Reporting GapStructural Missingness
Industry Dashboard

Inside the industry CT.gov disclosure backlog

Industry is not the only hiddenness category, but it still carries a large unresolved stock and substantial structural sparsity.

Open dashboardRead E156 paperProtocolSeries hub
Absolute stock
Eligible rates
Top sponsors
Structural gaps

Dashboard

Open dashboard at rootRead E156 micro-paperOpen protocolOpen series hub

Large sponsors dominate the raw backlog, but smaller firms can still look worse when the denominator changes to eligible older studies.

How to read the dashboard
Industry studies
128,464
All industry-linked records
Closed interventional
87,296
Industry only
2-year stock
44,007
No posted results
Eligible rate
58.1%
Older closed studies
Absolute stock
INDUSTRY BY STOCKLargest industry sponsors by absolute 2-year no-results countGlaxoSmithKline1,246AstraZeneca864Boehringer Ingelheim856Sanofi852Pfizer837Novartis Pharmaceuticals757Bayer679Hoffmann-La Roche586Novo Nordisk A/S579Bristol-Myers Squibb575
The biggest absolute backlogs sit with large multinational portfolios rather than obscure sponsors.
Read this as stock, not blame: a bigger bar here mostly means a larger unresolved public backlog, not necessarily a higher percentage failure rate.
Rate leaders
INDUSTRY BY RATEHighest industry 2-year no-results rates among sponsors with at least 50 eligible older studiesAbbott Nutrition100.0%Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited100.0%Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. LTD.100.0%HK inno.N Corporation100.0%Sunshine Lake Pharma Co., Ltd.100.0%Chong Kun Dang Pharmaceutical99.5%Yuhan Corporation98.7%PepsiCo Global R&D98.5%Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd.98.2%Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc98.1%
Rate-based leaders are not always the same firms that dominate the raw count of unresolved studies.
This panel flips the lens from scale to intensity, which is why small and midsize sponsors move up when percentage rather than stock is emphasized.
Field sparsity
INDUSTRY STRUCTUREStructural missingness rates in closed interventional industry studiesNo publication link66.6%No IPD statement63.2%No detailed description53.8%No locations9.8%
The disclosure gap is not limited to results posting; explanatory fields are often sparse as well.
Missing descriptions, publication links, and IPD statements reduce interpretability even when a record is not counted in the formal no-results backlog.
Read Across Projects

Across The Series

Each project isolates a different dimension of registry opacity, but the point is the contrast between them, not a single leaderboard.

Sponsor-Class Hiddenness
CT.gov Sponsor-Class Hiddenness

A standalone E156 project comparing sponsor classes on rate, stock, and structural sparsity rather than flattening everything into one leaderboard.

Phase Reporting Gap
CT.gov Phase Reporting Gap

A standalone E156 project on how reporting gaps change by trial phase, showing that phase structure matters alongside sponsor class.

Structural Missingness
CT.gov Structural Missingness

A standalone E156 project on the descriptive fields that disappear from ClinicalTrials.gov even before results reporting is considered.

Source on GitHub | Project home | Dashboard