No new trial approval until the sponsor has reported its old ones
Ethics committees should check whether a sponsor has published the results of its previous finished trials before approving the next one.
Ethics review has a legitimate interest in results reporting: participants consent partly on the promise that knowledge will be shared. Requiring sponsors to certify, and committees to verify via registry, that all trials completed more than two years ago have posted results, with approval withheld otherwise, would create the strongest incentive available without new legislation.
- Failures are hidden · Negative trials, failed drugs and abandoned programmes are rarely published, so the same mistakes are repeated.
Pages like this
not linked directly; found by shared links- IdeaA public transparency score for every trial sponsor, used by sites and patients
Shares Actually fine sponsors who do not post trial results, ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaStop failing trials earlier with pre-registered aggressive futility rules
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaAutomatically detect when a trial changes its outcomes after the fact
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaAn annual map of high-burden questions that nobody is funding
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaRequire every oncology candidate to publish how much reaches the brain
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaA standing rulebook for one-patient treatments
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaDeposit trial results as structured data, not just PDFs
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.
- IdeaPay investigators for finishing and publishing trials, not for enrolling patients
Shares ClinicalTrials.gov, Failures are hidden.