CTIS is the European system through which clinical trials in the EU and EEA are applied for, assessed and published. Its public website carries the trial information the Clinical Trials Regulation requires to be disclosed; the authorisation decisions themselves are taken by the member states concerned.
Domain Rating is a dated Ahrefs snapshot of domain authority. PetroHrys Score is an independent editorial assessment of the directory’s practical business value. They are separate measurements and are never combined. Domain Rating values are dated historical Ahrefs snapshots. Domain Rating is a dated historical measurement of the shared domain, not an assessment of this individual registry page. New measurements are not collected because the Research Center does not depend on mandatory authenticated APIs. Where several registries are published on one measured domain they repeat that domain’s single dated snapshot rather than each carrying a figure of its own. Domain Rating is a third-party metric produced by their respective providers, not by PetroHrys.com. Each recorded value carries its provider and the date it was measured, and describes the domain that was measured rather than one page on it. No source has been consulted for authority score, estimated traffic and referring domains, so they are not published for any record.
Open Open public access is recorded from the agency’s own documentation rather than from an executed search: the agency states that anybody can view information held in the system on clinical trials in the EU and EEA by using the searchable public website, and that the system went live with that website on 31 January 2022. The public site itself is a client-rendered application and was not exercised, so no claim is made about result formatting, export or any CAPTCHA, and no search URL is published.
Assessment
Strengths
It is the single European system for clinical trial applications and their publication, replacing a scattered national picture.
The agency states plainly that anybody can view the public information, so the access position comes from the operator rather than from inference.
It carries the disclosure the Clinical Trials Regulation mandates, so what appears is a legal obligation rather than voluntary publication.
Limitations
It is the publication interface. The trial authorisation is a decision of the member states concerned, and the system does not itself constitute it.
The public website is a client-rendered application that was not exercised, so its search behaviour, filters and export options were not observed.
Trials conducted before the current regime are not all here. The predecessor register continues to display legacy trials, so absence is not proof a trial never existed.
Submission guidance
Records are created through incorporation, registration, filing, or statutory processes.
Submission difficulty
Unknown
Typical listing quality
High
Typical approval time
Unknown
Review process
Unknown
Best for
Finding clinical trials authorised in the EU or EEA, with their sponsor, status and the details the regulation requires to be public.
Checking what a sponsor has disclosed about a trial, including results where the regulation requires them.
Not recommended for
Treating a listing as an approval by the agency. Authorisation is decided by the member states concerned; this system publishes what was submitted and decided.
Medicine, device or company verification. It records trials, not products, manufacturers or businesses.
Preparation checklist
No checklist recorded yet.
Common mistakes
No common mistakes recorded yet.
Establishing required submission assets requires submitting a listing and observing the result. That has not been done for any directory in this dataset, so it is not published rather than estimated.
What this directory accepts
Startups
Yes
SaaS products
Unknown
Enterprises
Yes
Agencies
Unknown
Freelancers
Unknown
Local businesses
Unknown
Developer tools
Yes
Open-source projects
Unknown
Non-profits
Yes
AI products
Unknown
Mobile apps
Unknown
Ecommerce stores
Unknown
Recommended industries
Clinical trial sponsors and investigators in the EU and EEA
How the PetroHrys Score was reached
Editorial trust 15%
10 / 10How far the entries a directory publishes can be relied on as accurate.
Business usefulness 15%
8 / 10How much practical use a listing there is to the business being listed.
Verification quality 12%
9 / 10How thoroughly the directory establishes that an entry is genuine before publishing it.
Platform reputation 10%
9 / 10How the platform is regarded in its field. Deliberately not a popularity, traffic or recognition measure.
Spam resistance 10%
10 / 10How well the directory keeps low-quality and promotional entries out.
Industry importance 10%
9 / 10How central the directory is to its sector, independently of how useful one listing is.
Long-term stability 10%
9 / 10How likely the directory is to still exist, and to still carry the entry, years from now.
Submission quality 8%
6 / 10What the submission process asks for and how workable it is for the business submitting.
Transparency 5%
10 / 10How openly the directory states its rules, costs and criteria.
Moderation quality 5%
8 / 10How the directory maintains entries after publication.
The PetroHrys Score is a first-party editorial assessment, not a third-party
authority metric. It is the weighted sum of the ten factors above, divided by ten, so the number
on this page is reproducible from the values shown. Each factor is scored from 0 to 10 by a human reviewer and weighted as shown. The definitions describe what was weighed, not a rubric: no threshold or formula maps a directory onto a value, and two reviewers could reach different numbers. The score is reproducible from the factors shown on every record, but it is an editorial judgement, not a measurement.