ArticlePloS one2016
An Analysis of Sponsors/Collaborators of 69,160 Drug Trials Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Significant Differences and Experimental Designs Do Not Necessarily Imply Clinical Relevance: Effect Sizes and Causality Claims in Antidepressant Treatments.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Inclusion of Economic Endpoints as Outcomes in Clinical Trials Reported to ClinicalTrials.gov.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- Article
- Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov.Trials · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical trials have been criticized on various counts. Any attempt to improve how trials are conducted or reported requires--amongst other things--an understanding of the number, the nature and the location of those that sponsor them or collaborate on them. Here we sought to identify the nature and location of each sponsor/collaborator. METHODS AND
findingsWe examined the 'sponsor/collaborator' field for the 69,160 drug trials that were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov over a 9-year period (2005-2014). Of the 12,823 unique sponsors, 56% had sponsored only one and 27% had sponsored 2-5 trials each. Just 18% were involved with six or more trials each, and we have (arbitrarily) labeled these organizations as 'more experienced' in sponsoring/collaborating on trials. These 18% (2,266 sponsors/collaborators) were analyzed further: (a) 951 were corporate organizations and (b) 1,145 were non-corporates (including 31 individuals) with (c) 170 unclassified. Further, we identified the location of each organization in (a) and (b).
conclusionsClinical trials are an important part of a nation's research endeavors, and ultimately contribute to the health of its people. Thus, understanding the clinical trial landscape--including the number and nature of sponsors, and how active they are--is important for every country. We believe that policy makers in particular should be interested in this study to understand the current situation, and to use the numbers as a baseline for the evolving landscape, to assess the impact of their strategies in future.
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.