I keep a spreadsheet of semaglutide trial listings and I'm confused by the counts. NCT07401992 says recruiting with 62 enrolled.
NCT06897475 says recruiting with 200. NCT06989203 says recruiting with 140.
Then NCT02079870 is completed with 30, and NCT07011667 is active, not recruiting with 609. Why is the completed one so small while a recruiting one is 609?
Am I misreading estimated vs actual enrollment?
Not asking for sourcing, just trying to understand the registry fields.
It's not just messy—enrollment can mean actual or estimated. The 30-person completed study is probably actual.
Then what about the 609 active-not-recruiting one? Is that actual or still a target?
I'd bet actual. Once it's not recruiting, they usually lock the final number.
Slow sites maybe. Some recruiting pages show current enrollment, not target.
I read the 200 one as target, not actual. ClinicalTrials is inconsistent that way.
Yeah, the 140 one might be target too. Same status doesn't mean same reporting.
I work with registry data and the key is that enrollment can mean estimated, actual, or both depending on the field. The 609 active-not-recruiting entry likely has a final actual enrollment, while the recruiting ones may still show anticipated numbers.
That doesn't tell you about dose, population, or whether it's an extension. If you're tracking semaglutide, build columns for status, phase, enrollment type, and primary completion. Otherwise the counts will look contradictory when they aren't.
Not sure phase alone explains the 30. A small completed study can still be late phase.
This is why I stopped comparing. I only looked at top-line counts and wondered why 609 dwarfed everything.
I used to think phase told the whole story. Then I started jotting actual versus target in the margin. My little notebook now has three columns and a lot more humility.
That columns advice is gold. I added status and enrollment type to my spreadsheet last night, and suddenly the 609 and the 30 stopped fighting each other. Still confusing, but quieter.
Target, actual, or both. That's the whole ballgame.
Slow sites could explain some drift, but not a 609-to-30 gap by itself. I've seen sites post stale numbers for months while the registry sleeps. I just flag dates now.
I once spent a whole afternoon comparing five semaglutide entries. My tea went cold. The numbers never matched. Later I realized I was mixing final, estimated, and who-knows. Lesson learned.
Same status, different fields. Rookie mistake. I did that once.
The extension angle matters too. If one listing is a rollover or add-on, its count can look tiny next to a main trial. I now check parent links before side-eyeing the math.
My new rule: never compare raw enrollment numbers across semaglutide trials without a snack and a footnote. I write down phase, status, enrollment type, and primary completion. Then I close the tabs.
The 30 vs 609 thing tripped me up too until I started adding start year and phase columns to my own nerdy spreadsheet. That 30 is probably an old completed early-phase or pilot study, where they only need enough people to see whether something is worth scaling.
The 609 on an active-not-recruiting record is more likely a later-phase or extension study with many sites, and the number may be estimated enrollment, not final actual.
Recruiting records usually show a target, so 62/200/140 are guesses until the study closes. Registry entries also lag: completed studies sometimes never update actual enrollment, while big ones get updated by sponsors.
So I stopped comparing raw counts and started comparing like-for-like: phase, start year, enrollment type, and primary completion.
Weirdly, a tiny 30-person study can have more useful waist and body-comp tracking than a huge one. Does any of your rows have actual enrollment filled in, or are they all estimates?
I filter out recruiting rows entirely; active-not-recruiting still isn't results.
Login to reply to this thread.
Login / Sign up