ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
An audit of studies registered retrospectively with the Clinical Trials Registry of India: A one year analysis.
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 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.
- Characteristics of exercise and rehabilitation intervention clinical trials registered with Clinical Research Information Service: a review.Journal of exercise rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Reporting of retrospective registration in clinical trial publications: a cross-sectional study of German trials.BMJ open · 2023Article
- The international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP): data integrity and the trends in clinical trials, diseases, and drugs.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Article
- Has mandatory prospective registration of all studies brought about a change? A 1-year audit of studies registered in the Clinical Trials Registry of India [CTRI] before and after April 1, 2018.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Analysis of AYUSH studies registered in clinical trials registry of India from 2009 to 2020.Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI) was launched in July 2007 and will enter its tenth year in 2017. While its mission is to encourage prospective trial registration, CTRI does permit retrospective trial registration. Against this backdrop, the present audit was carried out with the primary objective of assessing the nature and extent of trials retrospectively registered with CTRI.
methodsAll studies registered in the year 2016 were searched within CTRI using the keyword "CTRI/2016." The total number of trials registered in that year, their phase, the source of funding and their nature (Interventional or observational; whether postgraduate theses or otherwise, source of funding (pharmaceutical industry/Government of India/Institute Funded), whether prospectively or retrospectively registered were noted. We also tested for the association between the nature of the trial and retrospective registration using the Chi-square test and generated crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsA total of 1147 studies were registered in 2016, of which 719 (63%) were retrospectively registered. Interventional studies formed the majority of studies at
conclusionGiven that CTRI will be insisting on prospective registration effective April 1, 2018, and as trial registration is an ethical, scientific and moral imperative, prospective registration must always be done as prerequisite to participant protection.
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.