OnCo
ideasIdea

A public transparency score for every trial sponsor, used by sites and patients

Rate sponsors on whether they publish their results, share data and register outcomes honestly. Hospitals and patients can then prefer sponsors that behave well.

TrialsTracker-style dashboards already compute results-posting rates per sponsor. A composite score (results posting, time to publication, data sharing, outcome-switching audit, protocol availability) published annually and offered to hospital research offices and patient groups as a factor in choosing which trials to host or join would attach a reputational and recruitment cost to opacity.

Hypothesis
Sponsors in the bottom quartile will improve their score by at least 20 points within two years of publication, and sites adopting the score in feasibility assessments will report using it.
Rationale
Public university rankings on transparency in the UK and Germany produced rapid compliance improvements. Recruitment is the resource sponsors most fear losing.
What would test it
Publish scores for the top 50 oncology sponsors; survey research offices on use; re-score annually.
Maturity
early clinical
Who has to act
data
Cost to try
Small (under $1M)
Years to first evidence
2
Bottlenecks it attacks

Connected

4top