Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29862198›Full record

ArticlePerspectives in clinical research

Payment for participation in clinical research: Review of proposals submitted to the ethics committees.

Padmaja A Marathe, Raakhi K Tripathi, Yashashri C Shetty, Sunil S Kuyare, Sandhya K Kamat, Urmila M Thatte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Padmaja A MaratheDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Raakhi K TripathiDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Yashashri C ShettyDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sunil S KuyareDepartment of Microbiology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Sandhya K KamatDepartment of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Urmila M ThatteDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn view of dearth of information in national and international guidelines on payment practices in research, the present study was done to find out payments for participation allowed by 3 Ethics committees (ECs) and reasons for payment.

methodThis was a retrospective observational study which analysed research proposals reviewed by 2 institutional and 1 non-institutional ECs over a period of 2 years. The permission of ECs was obtained and confidentiality of data was maintained.

resultsOf the 73 studies requiring payment, 89.04% were interventional and 10.96% observational. Reimbursement of travel expenses (60%) was the major reason for payment followed by inconvenience due to participation, loss of wages and time spent. The queries raised by EC in more than 50 % of studies were related to informing patients about the payment in the informed consent document. The investigators complied with the EC requirements regarding payment (15/21) and the remaining provided explanations. The median amount of payment in pharmaceutical sponsored studies was higher compared to investigator initiated studies. Higher payments were approved by ECs on case to case basis in a few studies. The ECs did not have any policy/ standard operating procedure for payment practices.

conclusionThe present study first of its kind in India, demonstrated that quantum of payment was not uniform for pharmaceutical sponsored and investigator initiated studies and payments were not considered for majority of observational studies. Travel reimbursement was the most common reason for payment. There is a need to develop guidelines for determining appropriate payment/incentives to participants for specific types of research related activities.

Indexed as

Clinical researchincentiveinducementinvestigator-initiated studiespayment

Identifiers

PMID29862198
PMCPMC5950612

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.