SynthesisPloS one2013
Characteristics of randomized trials published in Latin America and the Caribbean according to funding source.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A multiyear systematic survey of the quality of reporting for randomised trials in dentistry, neurology and geriatrics published in journals of Spain and Latin America.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Ethnic Minority Participation in Clinical Trials from Latin America and the Caribbean: A Scoping Review.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2024Article
- Change over Five Years in Important Measures of Methodological Quality and Reporting in Randomized Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Virological measures and factors associated with outcomes, and missing outcome data in HIV clinical trials: a methodological study.BMJ open · 2021Review
- Article
- Improving public health and health systems through evidence informed policy in the Americas.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Article
- Adherence to clinical trial registration in countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, 2015.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2018Article
- An overview of financial sources being utilized to support Zika Virus published research.PloS one · 2017Review
- Twelve years of Fogarty-funded bioethics training in Latin America and the Caribbean: achievements and challenges.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFew studies have assessed the nature and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). METHODS AND
findingsThe aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the characteristics (including the risk of bias assessment) of RCT conducted in LAC according to funding source. A review of RCTs published in 2010 in which the author's affiliation was from LAC was performed in PubMed and LILACS. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were risk of bias assessment and funding source. A total of 1,695 references were found in PubMed and LILACS databases, of which 526 were RCTs (N = 73.513 participants). English was the dominant publication language (93%) and most of the RCTs were published in non-LAC journals (84.2%). Only five of the 19 identified countries accounted for nearly 95% of all RCTs conducted in the region (Brazil 70.9%, Mexico 10.1%, Argentina 5.9%, Colombia 3.8%, and Chile 3.4%). Few RCTs covered priority areas related with Millennium Development Goals like maternal health (6.7%) or high priority infectious diseases (3.8%). Regarding children, 3.6% and 0.4% RCT evaluated nutrition and diarrhea interventions respectively but none pneumonia. As a comparison, aesthetic and sport related interventions account for 4.6% of all trials. A random sample of RCTs (n = 358) was assessed for funding source: exclusively public (33.8%); private (e.g. pharmaceutical company) (15.3%); other (e.g. mixed, NGO) (15.1%); no funding (35.8%). Overall assessments for risk of bias showed no statistically significant differences between RCTs and type of funding source. Statistically significant differences favoring private and others type of funding was found when assessing trial registration and conflict of interest reporting.
conclusionFindings of this study could be used to provide more direction for future research to facilitate innovation, improve health outcomes or address priority health problems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.