Observational studyBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.
Observational study in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Analysis of 4616 clinical trial initial submissions received by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency between February 2019 and October 2023.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- Proposal and Strategy for Nursing-Led Research: Protocol for an Unfunded Clinical Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: an assessment of patient registries.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Investigator initiated trials versus industry sponsored trials - translation of randomized controlled trials into clinical practice (IMPACT).BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Non-commercial trials on medicines submitted to the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Bologna (Italy) along 8 years of activity: time to update rules and recommendations.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Article
- Non-commercial vs. commercial clinical trials: a retrospective study of the applications submitted to a research ethics committee.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are many difficulties in undertaking independent clinical research without support from the pharmaceutical industry. In this retrospective observational study, some design characteristics, the clinical trial public register and the publication rate of noncommercial clinical trials were compared to those of commercial clinical trials. A total of 809 applications of drug-evaluation clinical trials were submitted from May 2004 to May 2009 to the research ethics committee of a tertiary hospital, and 16.3% of trials were noncommercial. They were mainly phase IV, multicentre national, and unmasked controlled trials, compared to the commercial trials that were mainly phase II or III, multicentre international, and double-blind masked trials. The commercial trials were registered and published more often than noncommercial trials. More funding for noncommercial research is still needed. The results of the research, commercial or noncommercial, should be disseminated in order not to compromise either its scientific or its social value.
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.