ReviewInternational journal of pharmaceutical investigation
Compensation to clinical trial participants in India: A gap analysis.
Review in International journal of pharmaceutical investigation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early and extended erythropoietin monotherapy after hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy: a multicentre double-blind pilot randomised controlled trial.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2024Trial
- A python's embrace? Insurance and the global clinical trial.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- "Stories like ours continue": A phenomenological exploration of the lived experiences of ex-serial clinical trial volunteers in South India.Dialogues in health · 2025Article
- Issues, challenges, and the way forward in conducting clinical trials among neonates: investigators' perspective.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019Article
- Analysis of serious adverse events reports: Review by an Institutional Ethics Committee of a tertiary care teaching hospital.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Evaluation of factors that act as barriers in conducting academic trials - An investigator's perception.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
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
The recent amendments notified by the Government of India, for conducting clinical trial, is greatly appreciable as promoting safety and well-being of human subjects. These rules clearly state that medical management of injuries in clinical trials is mandatory, and clinical trial-related injury or death needs to be compensated over and above the medical management. These rules need to be reconsidered for simplification and better understanding of issues regarding compensation. There is a need of clarity at some points which should be discussed with all stakeholders for better understanding of current regulations. In our view, attention must also be given to academic investigators, during discussion to promote availability of cost-effective treatment in India.
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.