ArticlePloS one2015
Differential Globalization of Industry- and Non-Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transurethral resection of the prostate across continents: a meta-analysis evaluating quality of gold standard in the twenty-first century.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of Adjunctive Simvastatin on Depressive Symptoms Among Adults With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Characteristics of Authorized Clinical Trials in Peru, 2017-2025: A National Registry-Based Study.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Article
- Low-intervention clinical trials in Spain: Do they progress?British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Advancing global antibiotic research, development and access.Nature medicine · 2024Review
- Is there a relationship between attitudes of general practitioners/family doctors and attitudes of their patients regarding industry-sponsored clinical investigations? A cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of doctors and patients across nine European countries.Croatian medical journal · 2024Article
- Characterization of clinical trials in Ecuador and their association with disease burden: Are there research gaps?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Review
- Diversity in Oncology Clinical Trials: Current Landscape for Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials in Asia.Oncology and therapy · 2024Article
- Phase I clinical trial designs in oncology: A systematic literature review from 2020 to 2022.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Operational Challenges of an Asia-Pacific Academic Oncology Clinical Trial.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Article
- Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2022Article
- Article
- Mapping Chilean clinical research: a protocol for a scoping review and multiple evidence gap maps.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.
methodsWe analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.
results119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).
conclusionsBased on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.
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.