Dissemination pathways and non-publication rates among US-registered retinal vein occlusion trials: a cross-sectional study

Background The non-publication of clinical trial results undermines evidence-based medicine. This cross-sectional study characterized results dissemination pathways and reporting transparency among US-registered retinal vein occlusion (RVO) clinical trials, examining the divergence between registry and journal publication.Research design and methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May 2024 for interventional RVO trials completed at least three years prior. Trials were categorized by dissemination pathway. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of results availability and journal publication. Primary outcome significance evaluated selective reporting patterns.Results Among 137 trials (15,555 participants), 95 (69.3%, 95% CI: 60.9%–76.9%) had publicly available results. Dissemination showed pathway divergence: 42.3% were available through ClinicalTrials.gov results posting only, 26.3% through journal publication only, 0.7% through both pathways, and 30.7% through neither pathway. Industry and mixed-industry trials were more commonly registry-only than other/academic trials. Among trials with determinable outcomes, no over-representation of statistically significant findings was observed (p = 0.34), whereas trials with indeterminable outcomes were less likely to have public results (10.6% vs. 100%, p < 0.001).Conclusions RVO trial results were frequently unavailable and fragmented across registry and journal pathways, underscoring the need to integrate both sources in evidence synthesis.