decision guide
Build or Buy Trial Data
Compare the work of building trial data with using a ready-made source.
Clinical-data engineers, research intelligence teams, and product teams evaluating registry integrations.
why it matters
What this helps solve
ClinicalTrials.gov is authoritative for its own public study records and already provides an official API and downloads. A separate data layer is justified only when the buyer needs a common contract across registries, versioned delivery, and source-preserving reconciliation.
primary references
Check the original sources
coverage and freshness
Coverage for the current release
Canonical trial rows in the current dated release; this is not an upstream registry total.
Distinct exported canonical trials with an active ClinicalTrials.gov source contribution in the measured release.
Distinct exported canonical trials with an active EU CTIS source contribution in the measured release.
Distinct exported canonical trials with an active EU Clinical Trials Register source contribution in the measured release.
Distinct exported canonical trials with an active ISRCTN source contribution in the measured release.
Distinct exported canonical trials with an active DRKS contribution admitted by the registered-from-2025 or last-updated-in-2025 licence gate.
Maximum age 8 days. Oldest measured source refresh: 2026-11-02.
Weekly publication requires complete evidence no more than eight days old for four full registry crawls, the licensed DRKS slice, Health Canada CTD, and exact-edge PubMed.
details
What to evaluate
Use ClinicalTrials.gov directly for one-registry work
Choose the official API when ClinicalTrials.gov is the required source, its schema meets the application need, and your team can own extraction, storage, change handling, and downstream serving. This is often the simplest and most authoritative design.
- The official API is the source contract for records posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.
- Official study downloads can be configured and exported in supported formats without purchasing TrialBase.
Use a common layer for a five-source registry job
Choose TrialBase when the application needs one response and snapshot contract across ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTIS, EudraCT, ISRCTN, and the licensed DRKS slice, together with preserved source identifiers, source URLs, and a dated release.
- The value is normalized delivery and connector operations, not replacement of an official registry.
- Registry-specific meanings remain source-qualified even when fields share a common response shape.
Compare evidence, not headline totals
Evaluate active source contributions, field-fill rates, source freshness, date ranges, identifier ownership, and exact cross-registry evidence. A larger canonical total does not show whether the fields or jurisdictions needed by a workflow are covered.
Budget for the operating model
Direct access makes your team responsible for pagination, schema changes, backfills, release reproducibility, and any additional registry connectors. A maintained layer moves some of that work to a vendor but adds procurement, licensing, and vendor-dependency review.
scope boundaries
Keep these limits visible
- TrialBase is not an official registry, participant recruitment service, CTMS, EDC, site-selection product, or substitute for reviewing a current source record.
- A normalized record or cross-registry association does not guarantee that every field is semantically identical or that every linked record is the same study.
- Not a census of registries beyond the five named sources, and not the historical DRKS corpus outside its licensed slice.
- Not a patient recruitment, trial matching, investigator intelligence, or site-selection platform.
- Not medical, regulatory, or clinical decision advice.
Related evaluation guides
Connect this diligence evidence to the relevant integration decision.