Mahmood Ahmad
Tahir Heart Institute
author@example.com

CT.gov Phase Reporting Gap

Does reporting failure in ClinicalTrials.gov differ systematically by trial phase? We analysed the March 29, 2026 full-registry snapshot and grouped interventional studies by reported phase before calculating eligible two-year no-results rates and absolute missing-results stock. The analysis used 441,191 interventional studies overall, with 290,524 closed interventional studies and 249,507 eligible older studies driving the primary comparisons. Phase I had the highest eligible two-year no-results rate at 76.7 percent, followed by the large NA phase bucket at 65.5 percent and early phase I at 64.3 percent. By absolute count, the NA bucket contributed 96,605 unresolved two-year no-results studies, far exceeding later phases because of its scale, which shows phase structure shapes reporting behavior even before sponsor mix and therapeutic area are considered jointly. Phase III and phase IV performed better than phase I, but still remained far from transparent at 45.5 percent and 52.4 percent respectively. These phase estimates describe registry-visible non-disclosure rather than confirmed regulatory violation.

Outside Notes

Type: methods
Primary estimand: Eligible 2-year no-results rate by reported trial phase
App: CT.gov Phase Reporting Gap dashboard
Data: 441,191 interventional studies from the March 29, 2026 full-registry snapshot grouped by phase
Code: https://github.com/mahmood726-cyber/ctgov-phase-reporting-gap
Version: 1.0.0
Validation: FULL REGISTRY RUN

References

1. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. National Library of Medicine. Accessed March 29, 2026.
2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
3. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 2nd ed. Wiley; 2021.

AI Disclosure

This work represents a compiler-generated evidence micro-publication built from structured registry data and deterministic summary code. AI was used as a constrained coding and drafting assistant for interface generation, packaging, and prose refinement, not as an autonomous author. The analytical choices, interpretation, and final outputs were reviewed by the author, who takes responsibility for the content.