Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31276007›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2019

A Decade On: Systematic Review of ClinicalTrials.gov Infectious Disease Trials, 2007-2017.

Ian S Jaffe, Karen Chiswell, Ephraim L Tsalik

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Pandemic treatments on trial: the bigger picture.The European respiratory journal · 2020
    Article
  7. Automating the Transformation of Free-Text Clinical Problems into SNOMED CT Expressions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ian S JaffeDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine.
Karen ChiswellDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Ephraim L TsalikDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegistration of interventional trials of Food and Drug Administration-regulated drug and biological products and devices became a legal requirement in 2007; the vast majority of these trials are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov offers an opportunity to define the clinical research landscape; here we analyze 10 years of infectious disease (ID) clinical trial research.

methodsBeginning with 166 415 interventional trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2007-2017, ID trials were selected by study conditions and interventions. Relevance to ID was confirmed through manual review, resulting in 13 707 ID trials and 152 708 non-ID trials.

resultsID-related trials represented 6.9%-9.9% of all trials with no significant trend over time. ID trials tended to be more focused on treatment and prevention, with a focus on testing drugs, biologics, and vaccines. ID trials tended to be large, randomized, and nonblinded with a greater degree of international enrollment. Industry was the primary funding source for 45.2% of ID trials. Compared with the global burden of disease, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS and hepatitis C trials were overrepresented, and lower respiratory tract infection trials were underrepresented. Hepatitis C trials fluctuated, keeping with a wave of new drug development. Influenza vaccine trials peaked during the 2009 H1N1 swine influenza outbreak.

conclusionsThis study presents the most comprehensive characterization of ID clinical trials over the past decade. These results help define how clinical research aligns with clinical need. Temporal trends reflect changes in disease epidemiology and the impact of scientific discovery and market forces. Periodic review of ID clinical trials can help identify gaps and serve as a mechanism to realign resources.

Indexed as

clinical trialshepatitis Cinfectious diseasepolicy

Identifiers

PMID31276007
PMCPMC6598302
OpenAlexW2936863447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.