ReviewIndian journal of pediatrics2019
Pediatric Trials Run in India: An Analysis of Clinical Trials.gov 2006-2015.
Review in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Updated analysis of pediatric clinical studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2008-2019.BMC pediatrics · 2021Article
- Editorial: Children's Health from Global Determinants to Local Consequences: The Indian Perspective.Indian journal of pediatrics · 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
objectiveTo present a snapshot of 10 y of pediatric research, with a focus on trials with at least one enrolling site in India.
methodsThe study included all interventional trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2006 through December 2015, enrolling patients aged 0 to 18 y. The database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) was the data source used.
resultsNine thousand, six hundred forty-eight pediatric clinical studies were identified. Of these, 193 had at least one enrolling site in India. The primary purpose for most of these trials was treatment (n = 92) and prevention (n = 65) coupled with an efficacy and/or safety endpoint (n = 158). Infant and toddlers were eligible for enrollment in the majority of trials (97%) while neonates only in 22% of trials. The rate of early termination or withdrawal was 5%. The most commonly studied conditions were bacterial infections, viruses, digestive and mental diseases. Overall, communicable diseases (n = 75) and major non-communicable diseases (n = 72) were equally investigated.
conclusionsThe most commonly studied therapeutic areas in trials enrolling from India and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were appropriate for India public health needs and patients were not enrolled into studies inappropriately from this perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30648225What 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.