ArticlePloS one2013
Description of the protocols for randomized controlled trials on cancer drugs conducted in Spain (1999-2003).
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe the characteristics of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) on cancer drugs conducted in Spain between 1999 and 2003 based on their protocols.
methodsWe conducted an observational retrospective cohort study to identify the protocols of RCTs on cancer drugs authorized by the Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS) (Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Devices) during 1999-2003. A descriptive analysis was completed and the association between variables based on the study setting and sponsorship were assessed.
resultsWe identified a total of 303 protocols, which included 176,835 potentially eligible patients. Three-quarter of the studies were internationally-based, 61.7% were phase III, and 76.2% were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The most frequently assessed outcomes were response rate (24.7%), overall survival (20.7%), and progression-free survival (14.5%). Of all protocols, 10.6% intended to include more than 1000 patients (mean: 2442, SD: 2724). Compared with their national counterparts, internationally-based studies were significantly larger (p<0.001) and were more likely to implement centralized randomization (p<0.001), blinding of the intervention (p<0.001), and survival as primary outcome (p<0.001). Additionally, most internationally-based studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies (p<0.01). In a high percentage of protocols, the available information was not explicit enough to assess the validity of each trial. Compared to other European countries, the proportion of Spanish cancer drugs protocols registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (7%) was lower.
conclusionRCTs on cancer drugs conducted in Spain between 1999 and 2003 were more likely to be promoted by pharmaceutical companies rather than by non-profit national groups. The former were more often part of international studies, which generally had better methodological quality than national ones. There are some worldwide on-going initiatives that aim to increase the transparency and quality of future research.
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.