We compared the clinical trial transparency practices of US/European pharma by analyzing the publicly-accessible clinical trial results databases of major drugs (doripenem, varenicline, lapatinib, zoledronic acid, adalimumab, insulin glargine, raltegravir, gefitinib). We evaluated their accessibility and utility from the perspective of the lay public. We included databases on company websites, http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org. Only 2 of 8 company homepages provide a direct link to the results. While the use of common terms on company search engines led to results for 5 of the 8 drugs following 2-4 clicks, no logical pathway was identified. The number of clinical trials in the databases was inconsistent: 0 for doripenem to 45 for insulin glargine. Results from all phases of clinical development were provided for 2 (insulin glargine and gefitinib) of the 8 drugs. Analyses of phase III reports revealed that most critical elements of the International Conference of Harmonization E3 Structure and Content of Synopses for Clinical Trial Reports were provided for 2 (varenicline, lapatinib) of the 8 drugs. For adalimumab and zoledronic acid, only citations were provided, which the lay public would be unable to access. None of the clinical trial reports was written in lay language. User-friendly support, when provided, was of marginal benefit. Only 1 of the databases (gefitinib) permitted the user to find the most recently updated reports. None of the glossaries included explanations for adverse events or statistical methodology. In conclusion, our study indicates that the public faces significant hurdles in finding and understanding clinical trial results databases.