ArticlePerspectives in clinical research2013
Feasibility study of clinical trial for breast cancer and lung cancer at Indian sites.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct feasibility study of phase III breast and lung cancer clinical trials in India. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudy synopsis and feasibility questionnaire were mailed to 300 oncologists for each indication. Criteria of selection were enrolment of ≥2 patients per month, frequency of Ethics Committee (EC) meeting ≤4 weeks, dropout rate <20%, adequacy of infrastructure and training of site in good clinical practice (GCP). Descriptive analyses of the data were performed.
resultsFor both indications, 50/300 (16.7%) sites responded. The median number of patients seen by a site per month for breast and lung cancer was 20 (range 0-300) and 10 (range 0-75), respectively. Median number of eligible patients was 4 (range 0-20) and 3 (range 0-15) per month, for breast and lung cancer respectively. The frequency of EC meeting was ≤4 weeks at 36-56% of sites. All sites were trained in GCP and had adequate infrastructure to conduct the clinical trial. For breast cancer 22 (44%) sites (public 14 [28%]; private 8 [16%)]), and for lung cancer 18 (36%) sites (public 15 [30%], private: 3 [6%]) met the criteria of selection.
conclusionPreliminary feasibility study would require for confirmation of the important feasibility criteria by in depth discussion during the personal visit to the potential sites.
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.