Registered clinical trial trends evolved differently in East Asia vs the United States during 2014–2023 is a research paper published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (2025). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 0.241. It has been cited 4 times.
ObjectivesEast Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, has become a major hub for clinical trials. However, comprehensive comparisons between ClinicalTrials.gov and local registries remain limited. This study analyzes registered clinical trial trends in East Asia over the past decade (2014-2023) and compares them to trends in the United States (US).Study design and settingWe extracted clinical trial data through the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, including data from local registries and ClinicalTrials.gov for China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the US. We analyzed overall clinical trial trends and filtered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), categorizing them by location, target size, and disease category.ResultsChina experienced rapid growth in clinical trials, surpassing both Japan and the US in total trials and RCTs. By 2023, China led with 16,612 total trials (7798 RCTs), while the US registered 9100 (4619 RCTs). Except for China, all other countries showed some decline in recent years. Neoplastic diseases and cardiovascular and metabolic diseases were prominent in both regions, but the US showed growing focus on mental health. China's RCTs were predominantly domestic, while the United States maintained a higher proportion of international trials. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan showed moderate growth, with fewer international trials than the US. We recorded some inconsistencies and missing information across existing registries.ConclusionThe study highlights the increasing prominence of East Asia, particularly China, in registered clinical trials, though with a primarily domestic focus. Improvements in existing trial registries covering East Asia are desirable.
FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.
Base Score Contribution
0.241
From this paper's citation signal
Citation Network Contribution
0
Citation network not refreshed for this result
This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.
Learn more about DataRank methodology →DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.
Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.