印度临床试验注册中心公开披露临床试验结果-需要研究透明度!

Q2 Medicine Perspectives in Clinical Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-14 DOI:10.4103/picr.picr_39_22
Renuka Munshi, Chaitali Pilliwar, Miteshkumar Rajaram Maurya
{"title":"印度临床试验注册中心公开披露临床试验结果-需要研究透明度!","authors":"Renuka Munshi,&nbsp;Chaitali Pilliwar,&nbsp;Miteshkumar Rajaram Maurya","doi":"10.4103/picr.picr_39_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Since June 15, 2009, clinical trial registration in the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) has been made mandatory by the Drugs Controller General of India to improve transparency, accountability, conform to accepted ethical standards and reporting of all relevant results of registered trials. In this study, we planned to evaluate the compliance of Indian and global sponsors with clinical trials conducted in India in terms of reporting of clinical trial results at the CTRI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included trials registered in the CTRI between January 2018 and January 2020. The CTRI and ClinicalTrials.gov registry was thoroughly searched for all completed interventional studies. A year-wise comparative analysis was performed to evaluate the number of clinical trials reporting results in both the registry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The reporting of completed interventional clinical trial results was 25/112 (22.32%) in year 2018, y, 8/105 (7.6%) in year 2019 and 17/140 (12.14%) in year 2020. There was significantly less reporting of results of Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Indian at CTRI when compared with ClinicalTrials.gov registry for the year 2019 (odds ratio [OR]-0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.36) and <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and year 2020 (OR-0.45 [95% CI: 0.24-0.82] and <i>P</i> < 0.01). The difference in results reported at CTRI was significantly low for Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Global only for year 2019 (OR-0.09 [95% CI: 0.005-1.45] and <i>P</i> = 0.04) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to develop the culture of reporting clinical trial results in CTRI to strengthen the transparency in the research for overall benefit of public, health care professionals, and research community.</p>","PeriodicalId":20015,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/a2/PCR-14-81.PMC10267990.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public disclosure of clinical trial results at Clinical Trial Registry of India- Need for transparency in research!\",\"authors\":\"Renuka Munshi,&nbsp;Chaitali Pilliwar,&nbsp;Miteshkumar Rajaram Maurya\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/picr.picr_39_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Since June 15, 2009, clinical trial registration in the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) has been made mandatory by the Drugs Controller General of India to improve transparency, accountability, conform to accepted ethical standards and reporting of all relevant results of registered trials. In this study, we planned to evaluate the compliance of Indian and global sponsors with clinical trials conducted in India in terms of reporting of clinical trial results at the CTRI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included trials registered in the CTRI between January 2018 and January 2020. The CTRI and ClinicalTrials.gov registry was thoroughly searched for all completed interventional studies. A year-wise comparative analysis was performed to evaluate the number of clinical trials reporting results in both the registry.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The reporting of completed interventional clinical trial results was 25/112 (22.32%) in year 2018, y, 8/105 (7.6%) in year 2019 and 17/140 (12.14%) in year 2020. There was significantly less reporting of results of Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Indian at CTRI when compared with ClinicalTrials.gov registry for the year 2019 (odds ratio [OR]-0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.36) and <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and year 2020 (OR-0.45 [95% CI: 0.24-0.82] and <i>P</i> < 0.01). The difference in results reported at CTRI was significantly low for Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Global only for year 2019 (OR-0.09 [95% CI: 0.005-1.45] and <i>P</i> = 0.04) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to develop the culture of reporting clinical trial results in CTRI to strengthen the transparency in the research for overall benefit of public, health care professionals, and research community.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/65/a2/PCR-14-81.PMC10267990.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Clinical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_39_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_39_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:自2009年6月15日起,印度药品监督管理总局强制要求在印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI)进行临床试验注册,以提高透明度、问责制、符合公认的道德标准,并报告注册试验的所有相关结果。在这项研究中,我们计划评估印度和全球赞助商对在印度进行的临床试验在CTRI报告临床试验结果方面的依从性。方法:我们纳入了2018年1月至2020年1月在CTRI注册的试验。在CTRI和ClinicalTrials.gov登记处对所有已完成的介入研究进行了彻底搜索。进行了一项年度比较分析,以评估两个注册中心报告结果的临床试验数量。结果:2018年完成的介入临床试验结果报告为25/112(22.32%),2019年为8/105(7.6%),2020年为17/140(12.14%)。与2019年(优势比[OR]-0.17(95%置信区间[CI]:0.08-0.36)和2020年(OR-0.45[95%CI:0.24-0.82]和P<0.01)的ClinicalTrials.gov注册中心相比,制药公司赞助的印度介入研究中心在CTRI的结果报告明显较少与ClinicalTrials.gov相比,制药公司仅在2019年赞助了Interventional Studies Global(OR-0.09[95%CI:0.005-145],P=0.04)。结论:有必要发展在CTRI中报告临床试验结果的文化,以加强研究的透明度,从而使公众、卫生保健专业人员和研究界整体受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Public disclosure of clinical trial results at Clinical Trial Registry of India- Need for transparency in research!

Introduction: Since June 15, 2009, clinical trial registration in the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) has been made mandatory by the Drugs Controller General of India to improve transparency, accountability, conform to accepted ethical standards and reporting of all relevant results of registered trials. In this study, we planned to evaluate the compliance of Indian and global sponsors with clinical trials conducted in India in terms of reporting of clinical trial results at the CTRI.

Methods: We included trials registered in the CTRI between January 2018 and January 2020. The CTRI and ClinicalTrials.gov registry was thoroughly searched for all completed interventional studies. A year-wise comparative analysis was performed to evaluate the number of clinical trials reporting results in both the registry.

Results: The reporting of completed interventional clinical trial results was 25/112 (22.32%) in year 2018, y, 8/105 (7.6%) in year 2019 and 17/140 (12.14%) in year 2020. There was significantly less reporting of results of Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Indian at CTRI when compared with ClinicalTrials.gov registry for the year 2019 (odds ratio [OR]-0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.36) and P < 0.0001) and year 2020 (OR-0.45 [95% CI: 0.24-0.82] and P < 0.01). The difference in results reported at CTRI was significantly low for Pharmaceutical company sponsored Interventional Studies-Global only for year 2019 (OR-0.09 [95% CI: 0.005-1.45] and P = 0.04) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusion: There is a need to develop the culture of reporting clinical trial results in CTRI to strengthen the transparency in the research for overall benefit of public, health care professionals, and research community.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives in Clinical Research
Perspectives in Clinical Research Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer review quarterly journal is positioned to build a learning clinical research community in India. This scientific journal will have a broad coverage of topics across clinical research disciplines including clinical research methodology, research ethics, clinical data management, training, data management, biostatistics, regulatory and will include original articles, reviews, news and views, perspectives, and other interesting sections. PICR will offer all clinical research stakeholders in India – academicians, ethics committees, regulators, and industry professionals -a forum for exchange of ideas, information and opinions.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of student-led “Association for Support and Propagation of Innovation, Research, and Education” (A.S.P.I.R.E) in empowering undergraduate medical students in research: A 2-year longitudinal study Pleiotropic effect of teneligliptin versus glimepiride add-on therapy on hs-CRP and cardiorenal parameters in Indian type 2 diabetes patients: An open-labeled randomized controlled trial Efficacy and safety of quick penetrating solution heparin, quick penetrating solution diclofenac, and heparin gel in the prevention of infusion-associated superficial thrombophlebitis: A randomized controlled trial Bio-entrepreneurs’ bugbear: Regulatory rigmarole Experience of participating in community-based clinical trials from rural Maharashtra: Analysis of over 4000 participant feedback forms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1