You say "reported", but that's ambiguous. The question is, are all registered clinical studies published? If they are, why did Kirsch and Sapirstein have to sue under the Freedom of Information Act (and wait years) to see the unpublished studies of antidepressants?
If, by published you mean published in a peer-reviewed journal, then no. Studies are registered before they start, but clinical trials fail or are withdrawn for various reasons (like safety problems, lack of funding, etc).
I imagine that registered studies that are completed are published if they have positive results, or negative results that contradict other well-known positive results. There's no reason not to publish if you get a good or interesting result. But publication can take years, so I don't think it's particularly unusual to see a completed study without a corresponding publication.
But again, the specific cases you linked predate the current registration and reporting requirements.
Sorry, but publication of negative results only happens in a number of cases.
1) Research is carried out by academics with no ties to phamaceutical companies.
2) The negative results make a competitors drug look even worse.
If neither of these things are true, then negative results just sit in a file-drawer somewhere. Compulsory registration (clinicaltrials.gov) will help with this for new medicines, but this will take years before we have any decent information
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/28/the-depress...