The registered footprint of health-professions education studies across the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: a cross-registry meta-research study

Chujie Chen

doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263585

Authors

Chujie Chen Department of Urology, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen 518107, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263585

Keywords:

Health professions education, Clinical trials registries, Meta-research, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Research transparency, Reproducibility of results

Abstract

Background: Trial and study registries are an underused meta-research lens on health-professions education (HPE), but keyword retrieval cannot reliably isolate learner-focused studies because education and training terms are dominated by patient-education and clinical-trial vocabulary. We mapped the registered HPE footprint across the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), testing whether classification rather than filtering recovers the learner-focused signal.

Methods: From a frozen ICTRP cross-registry export (10 June 2026), 16 narrow plus four broad education terms yielded 1,390 records after three-tier de-duplication. Because keyword precision was low (narrow-term interventional positive predictive value 0.182, 95% CI 0.130-0.248) and no term subset reached 0.85, we applied a four-value blind protocol to all 1,383 classifiable records, double-coding a random 200-record reliability sample.

Results: Classification identified 109 registered HPE studies (7.9%, 95% CI 6.6-9.4%): 60 interventional and 49 observational (HPE-versus-rest Cohen κ 0.906). The footprint was small and pandemic-concentrated: 97 of 109 (89%) were registered in 2020-2023, peaking in 2021, and 99 of 109 (90.8%) were COVID-themed, across 11 registries and 29 countries (India most represented). Of 60 trials, 36 (60%) were randomized (median planned enrolment 100). Prospective registration was documented for 51 of 108 (47.2%) and a results record for only 18 of 109 (16.5%).

Conclusions: Registries reveal a small, pandemic-era-concentrated HPE footprint that keyword search misses; recovering it requires manual, double-coded classification of the candidate net. Low retrievability and sparse registry-visible results signal opportunities to strengthen prospective registration and results posting. Because this is a retrieved rather than exhaustive footprint, the counts carry a recall caveat.

References

DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1363.

Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F, et al. Clinical trial registration- looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(26):2734-6.

Puri K, Suresh K, Gogtay N, Thatte U. Declaration of Helsinki, 2008. J Postgrad Med. 2009;55(2):131-134.

World Health Organization. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Available from: https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform. Accessed on 10 June 2026.

Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM. Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(9):e1000144.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-9.

Califf RM. Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007-2010. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1838.

Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2011;45(3):227-38.

Pino C, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Inadequate description of educational interventions in ongoing randomized controlled trials. Trials. 2012;13(1).

Tolsgaard MG, Mahan Kulasegaram K, Woods NN, Brydges R, Ringsted C, Dyre L. The myth of ivory tower versus practice‐oriented research: a systematic review of randomised studies in medical education. Med Educ. 2021;55(3):328-35.

Al-Durra M, Nolan RP, Seto E, Cafazzo JA. Prospective registration and reporting of trial number in randomised clinical trials: global cross sectional study of the adoption of ICMJE and Declaration of Helsinki recommendations. BMJ. 2020;369:m982.

Masters K. MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research. MedEdPublish. 2019;8:125.

Rose S. Medical student education in the time of COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(21):2131.

Naciri A, Radid M, Kharbach A, Chemsi G. E-learning in health professions education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Educ Eval Health Profess. 2021;18:27.

Ortiz-Martínez Y, Mejía-Alzate C, Marquez-Alfonso E, Felizzola-Martínez D, Díaz-Ruiz MJ, Vergara-Retamoza R, et al. Has the COVID-19 pandemic had a positive impact on scientific production in medical education? A bibliometric analysis. Educ Méd. 2021;22(6):362.

Jin Y, Song Y, Li X, Wu H, Zhang Q. Research trends of health professions education model from 2005 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis via CiteSpace. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2025;16:2307-25.

Tornhammar P, Julner A, Al Moosawi N, Wicksell E, Lim CE, Andersson DP, et al. Completion and reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov during the first 6 months of the pandemic: cohort study. BMJ Open. 2024;14(11):e085906.

Hunter KE, Webster AC, Page MJ, Willson M, McDonald S, Berber S, et al. Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers. BMJ. 2022;377:e068791.

Glanville JM, Duffy S, McCool R, Varley D. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? J Med Library Assoc. 2014;102(3):177-83.

van Valkenhoef G, Loane RF, Zarin DA. Previously unidentified duplicate registrations of clinical trials: an exploratory analysis of registry data worldwide. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):116.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159.

Ioannidis JPA, Bendavid E, Salholz-Hillel M, Boyack KW, Baas J. Massive covidization of research citations and the citation elite. Proceed Nat Acad Sci. 2022;119(28).

Wu H, Dai R, He P, Liang J, Li Q, Yang J, et al. Characteristics analysis for clinical study design relating to COVID-19 based on the database of ClinicalTrials.gov. Int J Infect Dis. 2022;116:210-5.

Viergever RF, Karam G, Reis A, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials: still a problem. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e84727.

Huser V, Cimino JJ. Linking ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to track results of interventional human clinical trials. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68409.

Showell M, Buckman S, Berber S, Ata Allah N, Patterson B, Cole S, et al. Publication bias in trials registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Is it a problem? A cross-sectional study. PloS One. 2023;18(1):e0279926.

Zarin DA, Fain KM, Dobbins HD, Tse T, Williams RJ. 10-year update on study results submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(20):1966-74.

Braillon A, Naudet F. STROBE and pre-registration of observational studies. BMJ. 2023;380:p90.

Cook DA, Hatala R. Got power? A systematic review of sample size adequacy in health professions education research. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2015;20(1):73-83.