Paper
Detailed-description gaps are wider than endpoint-text gaps because they remove the larger paragraph that frames the study for readers.
Which named sponsors most often leave older CT.gov study pages without detailed descriptions, removing the broad paragraph that explains what was actually studied? We analysed 249,507 eligible older closed interventional studies from the March 29, 2026 full-registry snapshot and ranked sponsors with at least 100 studies. We defined a detailed-description gap as a missing detailed description field, then compared sponsor stock, rate, and class patterns. GlaxoSmithKline led the sponsor detailed-description-gap stock table at 1,826 studies, followed by Boehringer Ingelheim at 1,600, Pfizer at 1,593, and Hoffmann-La Roche at 1,326. Novo Nordisk A/S had the highest large-sponsor detailed-description-gap rate at 97.4 percent, while Boehringer Ingelheim reached 96.0 percent and Industry reached 53.7 percent as a sponsor class. The detailed-description gap removes the larger narrative paragraph from mature registry pages, leaving readers with less context before asking about results. These counts describe missing registry text fields and do not by themselves establish legal non-compliance, concealment, or absent materials.